News Article: Chevy not pressured!

[KingBogo]

You, like many other "patient" people here like to misrepresent the position of people here advocating change. It's few and far between that you will find a person that wants to change directions at the drop of a hat ala Toronto or Philadelphia. That is not the model we are following, nor it is the model that should be emulated, obviously. Not too mention the logistical issues with Philly and Toronto being huge market teams while we are a small market team.

What people are advocating that "drafting and developing" is not nearly enough. Not ONE team that has had success gets success solely through the draft. There is more to an organization than hanging onto your 7 picks and picking good players while barely managing your NHL roster.

Chevy has continually shied away from making an impact on the roster. He has made some secondary roster moves, but this is essentially the team that played in 2010-11. How many other teams have essentially the same roster from? Maybe a few like Chicago, Los Angeles, Boston. What do those teams have in common? Success. Whereas we have had none.

Chevy appears to have no direction. 29 other teams are out there drafting and developing talent. You are absolutely kidding yourself if you think we managed to re-invent the wheel and become the master of drafting and developing. But but all those players are going to Gary Roberts! But so are 100's of unknowns, we are doing what everyone else is doing.

What is required is some real direction in the organization. Are we rebuilding? Are we adding picks and youth? Or are we trying to take the next step? Are we trading picks for veterans and signing free agents? We seem to be trying to do both at once. That is just not going to work. We have little idea what we want to do. That's what's killing this organization.

Not sure why the above didn't come up in quotes? [mod:fixed for you]

I don't fundamentally disagree on what your saying, though I think you have over simplified it, but I do disagree with your conclusions.

IMO first and fore most Chevy needed to get some young talent into the organization through the draft. In my mind he excelled in this as we now see a top 4 d-man and top 6 center come on board with a lot of room to grow still. There also looks to be a lot more potential in the wings. Possibly another top 4 d-man and another top 6 forward plus some other role players.

At the same time you needed to get the players you already have under contract before they start drifting away. IMO that is where we are now. The problem is an artificially low cap this season as drastically limited player movement for most teams so we are in a bit of a holding pattern.

The next step this summer will be a full steer in one direction or another. If our veteran core looked to be able to carry the load being supplemented with prospects coming in I think Chevy starts trying to add veterans to our older core. This doesn't look to be the case, so my guess is Chevy will be inclined to take the other route and trade a veteran or 2 to add some more young players/prospects/picks to our younger group. The downfall with this route is we will likely get worse before we get better, but of course this gives you higher end picks so it actually enhances this path over time.

Quite the opposite to killing this organization I see it as care-taking with the organization. This is a slow process but one worth waiting for and far better than throwing things at the wall hoping it sticks. We just need some patients. Overall, I think we are thinking along the same lines you just want it to happen faster. IMO Chipman extended Chevy to ensure he wouldn't be tempted to try and rush things.

 

[Aavco Cup]

Chevy appears to have no direction.

What is required is some real direction in the organization.

These statements show extreme bias and undermine any good points in the rest of your argument.

I know because if he had pursued those players they would be in Winnipeg? Think Hainsey is turning down 2y. 5million at start of free agency to sign for 1y, 2mil in Carolina? Really?

I don't know how you know? It''s been said Hainsey wanted to play in the US and in the eastern time zone. He's a union guy and exercised his right as a UFA. He miscalculated and nobody rushed to sign him til training camp. Same for the goalies. How do you know? And you assume Chevy was looking for a 1B to play 40 games when all he was looking for was a reliable back up.

Clitsome is a #6/7 D. Hainsey is a solid #4. That's just the easiest move. There is also Ference, Scuderi, Gilbert etc that moved on the UFA market, not too mention Smid was moved earlier this year for absolute PEANUTS. There was opportunities to improve this club Chevy has refused to take

If Hainsey is so solid why did it take so long for him to find a home?Ference signed in his hometown on day 1 of FA. Do you really think there was a chance he was gonna be a Jet? Scuderi was either gonna be a King or a Penguin. He wants to win another cup. The Jets aren't winning one soon. Smid re- signed in Edmonton because he wanted to stay there. He makes $3.5M how would we fit him under the cap? All of these moves Chevy should have made are unrealistic. I think there are some things that could have been done differently just not what your advocating.

 

[surixon]

You, like many other "patient" people here like to misrepresent the position of people here advocating change. It's few and far between that you will find a person that wants to change directions at the drop of a hat ala Toronto or Philadelphia. That is not the model we are following, nor it is the model that should be emulated, obviously. Not too mention the logistical issues with Philly and Toronto being huge market teams while we are a small market team.

What people are advocating that "drafting and developing" is not nearly enough. Not ONE team that has had success gets success solely through the draft. There is more to an organization than hanging onto your 7 picks and picking good players while barely managing your NHL roster.

Chevy has continually shied away from making an impact on the roster. He has made some secondary roster moves, but this is essentially the team that played in 2010-11. How many other teams have essentially the same roster from? Maybe a few like Chicago, Los Angeles, Boston. What do those teams have in common? Success. Whereas we have had none.

Chevy appears to have no direction. 29 other teams are out there drafting and developing talent. You are absolutely kidding yourself if you think we managed to re-invent the wheel and become the master of drafting and developing. But but all those players are going to Gary Roberts! But so are 100's of unknowns, we are doing what everyone else is doing.

What is required is some real direction in the organization. Are we rebuilding? Are we adding picks and youth? Or are we trying to take the next step? Are we trading picks for veterans and signing free agents? We seem to be trying to do both at once. That is just not going to work. We have little idea what we want to do. That's what's killing this organization.



I know because if he had pursued those players they would be in Winnipeg? Think Hainsey is turning down 2y. 5million at start of free agency to sign for 1y, 2mil in Carolina? Really? Think Khudobin or Greiss would turn down the chance to challenge a weak starter for 1-1.5 million rather than the peanuts they took to be clear cut backups? If so I have a bridge to sell you in Nunavut.



Noel takes his marching orders from Chevy. Chevy brings in Khudobin to challenge perennially mediocre netminder Pavelec and tells Noel to give him a real chance, you think Noel is suddenly going to bench him? If he does, Chevy moves on to the next coach. It's not even close to debatable if Hainsey makes us a better team. He makes us a MUCH better team with him in the top 6 compared to CLitsome. I said way back when the contract was signed that we would be talking buyout by the end of year 2 with Clitsome. Turns out we are talking that much much sooner. Clitsome is a #6/7 D. Hainsey is a solid #4. That's just the easiest move. There is also Ference, Scuderi, Gilbert etc that moved on the UFA market, not too mention Smid was moved earlier this year for absolute PEANUTS. There was opportunities to improve this club Chevy has refused to take

You take a far too simplistic view on things. I never said everyone thought that but some peoplethink Chevy can magically improve this team through trades without creating holes elsewhere.

You disagree which is fine but I for one see direction and most every move Chevy has made aligns with the strategy I outlined. I also never advocated for a straight up draft strategy more so a strategy based around acquiring assets at the draft and utilizing the excess assets to acquire talent in trades much like what San Jose does. What excess assets to we currently have to make the bold moves that you seem to think Chevy should have made?

You guys keep going on about how Chevy failed to bring in backup goalies in Greiss etc... Yet never give him credit for Montoya who is performing equally well in that capacity.

Once again name the moves that you'd make to vastly improve this team. The only asset that we have to move that can be replaced I'm house without creating a hole is Buff. Or do you advocate making a bunch of trades creating roster holes and crashing down the standings in a weakndradt year.

 

[cbcwpg]

Just to add my 2-cents, but I agree that "drafting and developing" is not nearly enough. IMO it's impossible to build a team just via the draft.

If you historically look at the NHL draft for any team you will find similar numbers with some variances due to getting lucky, but I will be using the Jets here as that's who we are talking about. Using the www.hockeydb.com and looking at the draft for the Jets / Atlanta from 1999 to 2013:

- there were 4 years where 2 players were drafted that had serviceable NHL careers
- there were 2 years where 0 players drafted had serviceable NHL careers ( granted 2013 was one of these years )
- there were 9 years where 1 player drafted had a serviceable NHL career.

** I'm assuming here that Trouba and Scheifele will have serviceable NHL careers, so I have counted them. **

So using the minimum 20 man roster size as a guide.... the fact that in most years you will only draft 1 person that will have a serviceable NHL career..... and that most careers for your average player don't last for all that long..... it could take you ~15-20 years to replace everyone on your current roster if the only way you go about replacing them, is via the draft.

I'm sure someone can come up with more scientific numbers to the 18th decimal place, but my point is a GM must do more than just build thru the draft. You have to use the waiver wire as Chevy likes doing, but you also have to go after other teams FAs, and make trades etc. to build your team. Sure, maybe you can build your "core 4 or 5 guys" via the draft, but you still have a whole team to fill, and given the actual success teams have at the draft.... the draft and develop isn't enough.

 

[surixon]

Just to add my 2-cents, but I agree that "drafting and developing" is not nearly enough. IMO it's impossible to build a team just via the draft.

If you historically look at the NHL draft for any team you will find similar numbers with some variances due to getting lucky, but I will be using the Jets here as that's who we are talking about. Using the www.hockeydb.com and looking at the draft for the Jets / Atlanta from 1999 to 2013:

- there were 4 years where 2 players were drafted that had serviceable NHL careers
- there were 2 years where 0 players drafted had serviceable NHL careers ( granted 2013 was one of these years )
- there were 9 years where 1 player drafted had a serviceable NHL career.

** I'm assuming here that Trouba and Scheifele will have serviceable NHL careers, so I have counted them. **

So using the minimum 20 man roster size as a guide.... the fact that in most years you will only draft 1 person that will have a serviceable NHL career..... and that most careers for your average player don't last for all that long..... it could take you ~15-20 years to replace everyone on your current roster if the only way you go about replacing them, is via the draft.

I'm sure someone can come up with more scientific numbers to the 18th decimal place, but my point is a GM must do more than just build thru the draft. You have to use the waiver wire as Chevy likes doing, but you also have to go after other teams FAs, and make trades etc. to build your team. Sure, maybe you can build your "core 4 or 5 guys" via the draft, but you still have a whole team to fill, and given the actual success teams have at the draft.... the draft and develop isn't enough.

True, but you can't make trades if you don't have desirable assets. Most assets that are traded are either prospects, picks or developed players. I feel we are still very much in the asset acquisition stage. We don't have enough high end young players in the system yet to start making trades. Give us another strong draft or two and we should have a strong enough base to start making more trades. Other than dealing Buff for a couple of younger assets I don't see a piece to deal ATM.

 

[Whileee]

Just to add my 2-cents, but I agree that "drafting and developing" is not nearly enough. IMO it's impossible to build a team just via the draft.

If you historically look at the NHL draft for any team you will find similar numbers with some variances due to getting lucky, but I will be using the Jets here as that's who we are talking about. Using the www.hockeydb.com and looking at the draft for the Jets / Atlanta from 1999 to 2013:

- there were 4 years where 2 players were drafted that had serviceable NHL careers
- there were 2 years where 0 players drafted had serviceable NHL careers ( granted 2013 was one of these years )
- there were 9 years where 1 player drafted had a serviceable NHL career.

** I'm assuming here that Trouba and Scheifele will have serviceable NHL careers, so I have counted them. **

So using the minimum 20 man roster size as a guide.... the fact that in most years you will only draft 1 person that will have a serviceable NHL career..... and that most careers for your average player don't last for all that long..... it could take you ~15-20 years to replace everyone on your current roster if the only way you go about replacing them, is via the draft.

I'm sure someone can come up with more scientific numbers to the 18th decimal place, but my point is a GM must do more than just build thru the draft. You have to use the waiver wire as Chevy likes doing, but you also have to go after other teams FAs, and make trades etc. to build your team. Sure, maybe you can build your "core 4 or 5 guys" via the draft, but you still have a whole team to fill, and given the actual success teams have at the draft.... the draft and develop isn't enough.

Well, I don't agree entirely. Just about every single player in the NHL was drafted by some team, so all trades and waiver wire pickups bring in previously drafted players. Theoretically, if you draft better than all the other teams you will have the best roster and best system, and therefore best team. So, good drafting and development is the cornerstone of building a team.

Trades etc. come into play and help you get a leg up if: a) you do a better job of assessing a player's potential and value than other teams; b) you are patient and make trades at opportune moments to take advantage of other teams; c) you manage your salaries so that you can fit the most good players under the cap without wasting cap space on ineffective players.

For the Jets, I still see their core of players as "assets" that might or might not be the right mix for a contending team. Having most of them signed long-term, they have high value on the trade market, especially with a rising cap. In the near term, the Jets will have to consider what to do about Buff and Ladd, who have 2 years on their contracts after this season. Soon, their value will start to decline because teams will fear losing them in free agency, especially with a rising cap.

Chevy shouldn't be in a hurry, but I expect that he will take this year to evaluate his core, his rookies and his prospects and then decide what sorts of moves he needs to make in the off-season. With the rising cap, he should have a lot more flexibility to move a core player or two in the off-season. Rushing into that sort of trade during the season could be disastrous, unless there is a rare "hockey trade" (i.e. without picks and prospects) that makes sense.

 

[Whileee]

True, but you can't make trades if you don't have desirable assets. Most assets that are traded are either prospects, picks or developed players. I feel we are still very much in the asset acquisition stage. We don't have enough high end young players in the system yet to start making trades. Give us another strong draft or two and we should have a strong enough base to start making more trades. Other than dealing Buff for a couple of younger assets I don't see a piece to deal ATM.

I've advocated for building around a younger core, which might not include Buff (especially since is a UFA two seasons after this). However, making a trade for picks or prospects isn't easy right now since so many teams are right up against the salary cap, so salaries coming and going have to match.

 

[tbcwpg]

The problem I have with the whole notion of "Chevy refused to go after X in the off-season" is that we don't know that he didn't pursue them. The only evidence people have to point to is that they aren't Winnipeg Jets. Well, they aren't Buffalo Sabres either, or Maple Leafs, or Flames, etc. It's the presumption that they know what Chevy was thinking, or the player was thinking. He may not have went after any of these guys, he may have went after some and didn't get the signature, who knows.

 

[surixon]

The problem I have with the whole notion of "Chevy refused to go after X in the off-season" is that we don't know that he didn't pursue them. The only evidence people have to point to is that they aren't Winnipeg Jets. Well, they aren't Buffalo Sabres either, or Maple Leafs, or Flames, etc. It's the presumption that they know what Chevy was thinking, or the player was thinking. He may not have went after any of these guys, he may have went after some and didn't get the signature, who knows.

I don't think we will be seen as a high end destination for FA's until we start to regularly contend.

 

[tbcwpg]

I don't think we will be seen as a high end destination for FA's until we start to regularly contend.

I don't even think it's that necessarily, with the type of FAs that Holden was mentioning (backup goalies, depth d-men). You might be right in that if a backup is picking between Phoenix and Winnipeg he might choose Phoenix if all else is equal, but I just think the notion of "He didn't sign in Winnipeg so Chevy must not have tried too hard" is just a bit too narrow-minded. It may be correct that he didn't, but we don't know, and we have no evidence that he didn't.

I think we were the perfect type of destination for a guy like Jokinen, for example. He was the best C available in that off-season period, and we are close to Calgary, with a lifestyle that him and his family are used to.

 

[Tintin's Ghost]

Chevy's work has been fine so far. The draft last June may be a watershed moment for this organization in a few years! He extended his perceived core most of whom (if not all) are (or were last June) viewed as "core" by most fans and Winnipeg sports writers. And I appreciate he has the patience required to build the club up.

But when he preaching patience and talking about key pieces in place, I think of Burmi and just how ridiculous it was to lose this guy. C'mon, man!

 

[Gump Hasek]

You, like many other "patient" people here like to misrepresent the position of people here advocating change. That is not the model we are following, nor it is the model that should be emulated, obviously. Not too mention the logistical issues with Philly and Toronto being huge market teams while we are a small market team. What people are advocating that "drafting and developing" is not nearly enough. Not ONE team that has had success gets success solely through the draft. There is more to an organization than hanging onto your 7 picks and picking good players while barely managing your NHL roster.

Drafting and developing players in-house was proffered as a strategy for the Jets to build their team versus the annual chasing of big name/money free agents. That drafting strategy doesn't at all preclude them from trading from within their core group, nor does it preclude them from even aggressively dealing futures some day when they feel they've a team ready for a run. Drafting and developing simply serves to augment their core over the coming years but does not prevent them from making changes to it.

Your claims here are an equal misrepresentation of the position of others. That the Jets didn't do a quick rebuild per your personal preference does not mean they lack direction, but rather, it just means they are doing things differently than you would prefer.

 

[veganhunter]

Well, I don't agree entirely. Just about every single player in the NHL was drafted by some team, so all trades and waiver wire pickups bring in previously drafted players. Theoretically, if you draft better than all the other teams you will have the best roster and best system, and therefore best team. So, good drafting and development is the cornerstone of building a team.

Trades etc. come into play and help you get a leg up if: a) you do a better job of assessing a player's potential and value than other teams; b) you are patient and make trades at opportune moments to take advantage of other teams; c) you manage your salaries so that you can fit the most good players under the cap without wasting cap space on ineffective players.

For the Jets, I still see their core of players as "assets" that might or might not be the right mix for a contending team. Having most of them signed long-term, they have high value on the trade market, especially with a rising cap. In the near term, the Jets will have to consider what to do about Buff and Ladd, who have 2 years on their contracts after this season. Soon, their value will start to decline because teams will fear losing them in free agency, especially with a rising cap.

Chevy shouldn't be in a hurry, but I expect that he will take this year to evaluate his core, his rookies and his prospects and then decide what sorts of moves he needs to make in the off-season. With the rising cap, he should have a lot more flexibility to move a core player or two in the off-season. Rushing into that sort of trade during the season could be disastrous, unless there is a rare "hockey trade" (i.e. without picks and prospects) that makes sense.

Totally agree with this.

 

[Joe Hallenback]

The Blackhawks were built on drafting and trading of assets.

Kane,Toews,Keith,Seabrook,Bickell,Buff,Brouwer,Bolland,Hjarlmasson and Crawford.

Sharp and Ladd were traded for. Versteeg was plucked off waivers.

Hossa,Campbell and Madden were UFAs.

They then had to move quite a few of those guys for picks and prospects and basically repeated the process again because of there good asset management.

It isn't a secret that this is the model the Jets want and that they brought Chevy over from that Organization to do it. Just requires some time

 

[BigZ65]

Just to add my 2-cents, but I agree that "drafting and developing" is not nearly enough. IMO it's impossible to build a team just via the draft.

If you historically look at the NHL draft for any team you will find similar numbers with some variances due to getting lucky, but I will be using the Jets here as that's who we are talking about. Using the www.hockeydb.com and looking at the draft for the Jets / Atlanta from 1999 to 2013:

- there were 4 years where 2 players were drafted that had serviceable NHL careers
- there were 2 years where 0 players drafted had serviceable NHL careers ( granted 2013 was one of these years )
- there were 9 years where 1 player drafted had a serviceable NHL career.

** I'm assuming here that Trouba and Scheifele will have serviceable NHL careers, so I have counted them. **

So using the minimum 20 man roster size as a guide.... the fact that in most years you will only draft 1 person that will have a serviceable NHL career..... and that most careers for your average player don't last for all that long..... it could take you ~15-20 years to replace everyone on your current roster if the only way you go about replacing them, is via the draft.

I'm sure someone can come up with more scientific numbers to the 18th decimal place, but my point is a GM must do more than just build thru the draft. You have to use the waiver wire as Chevy likes doing, but you also have to go after other teams FAs, and make trades etc. to build your team. Sure, maybe you can build your "core 4 or 5 guys" via the draft, but you still have a whole team to fill, and given the actual success teams have at the draft.... the draft and develop isn't enough.

That's all the "draft and develop" stuff is referring to. Every team has to fill a roster, but we aren't going to be signing $8 million a year UFA's to form our core, those guys are going to be draft picks or guys acquired in trade. I don't believe anyone has iced a roster of their own draft picks since free agency.

 

[Grind]

The Thing is, Even as Far as Drafting and Developing Goes, Chevy hasn't been much above average.

I think what Holden's getting at (or at least what i'm interpreting/agreeing with) is that a lot (not all) of the "patient" crowd, get their knickers damp and give chevy a big ol' pat on the back for a "superior" drafting plan, when, if you actually separate yourself from the situation, there's no way to really show he's done any better then most other GMs.

We've got 2 draftees playing on the roster since his acquisition. 13 other teams have either:

A)two or more players they've drafted since 2011 playing on their roster
B) had two or more players they drafted since 2011 playing in the NHL
C)Are playing two or more players drafted since 2011 (possibly acquired in trade)

Even if you eliminate C) to avoid any overlay (which their isn't, no players are accounted for twice) the number of teams only drops by 1.


So though Schief and trouba look great, their emergence is at best "just" above average.



So then we should look at our draft selections. Since 2011 we've had 23 picks, 2 more then every other team starts with.

Furthermore with an average draft selection of 4 for most teams, (1-7/7) our average draft selection for those picks is 3.9

Now you can hypothetically say our players have a better chance of success then others, but there's no real way to support that, it's just speculation.

3/3 1st
3/3 2nd
5/3 3rd +2
3/3 4th
3/3 5ths
2/3 6ths
4/3 7ths +1

So when it all boils down our "superior" drafting and developing has yielded

No more NHL'ers then 14 other teams (or "average")
2 extra 3rd round picks
1 extra 7th round pick
1 extra 2nd round pick (if we obsolve blame for the missing 2nd traded before he became GM)

that isn't exactly a massive collection or staggering resume. It maybe above average, but only slightly.


Combine that with the fact that we've only added 1 significant young "long term" asset from outside the organization in Frolik, and we've acquired 5 "short term" or "insiginificant" players elsewise, I think it's entirely reasonable to not be overly double plussed with the jets drafting.


The argument seems to hinge on the idea that Chevy's inaction as far as player movement goes has been made up for in his drafting/steady approach. Unfortunately, his player movement/etc has been generally underwhelming while his drafting has at this point, from a non speculative view, has been barely above average.


I agree with drafting and being patient and everything, but the fact is Chevy hasn't even done this significantly better then any other organization up until this point. The proof will obviously be in the pudding in 3 + years, but for now, I don't buy the hype.

I appreciate it, and i like what he's doing, but if he continues his inaction through this season/into next season I simply can't support him. With this method he has to be above average in player acquisition as well, and he hasn't until this point. We etiher need to become far better then "top 14" at drafting, or become better at moving/acquiring NHLers.

 

[surixon]

The Thing is, Even as Far as Drafting and Developing Goes, Chevy hasn't been much above average.

I think what Holden's getting at (or at least what i'm interpreting/agreeing with) is that a lot (not all) of the "patient" crowd, get their knickers damp and give chevy a big ol' pat on the back for a "superior" drafting plan, when, if you actually separate yourself from the situation, there's no way to really show he's done any better then most other GMs.

We've got 2 draftees playing on the roster since his acquisition. 13 other teams have either:

A)two or more players they've drafted since 2011 playing on their roster
B) had two or more players they drafted since 2011 playing in the NHL
C)Are playing two or more players drafted since 2011 (possibly acquired in trade)

Even if you eliminate C) to avoid any overlay (which their isn't, no players are accounted for twice) the number of teams only drops by 1.


So though Schief and trouba look great, their emergence is at best "just" above average.



So then we should look at our draft selections. Since 2011 we've had 23 picks, 2 more then every other team starts with.

Furthermore with an average draft selection of 4 for most teams, (1-7/7) our average draft selection for those picks is 3.9

Now you can hypothetically say our players have a better chance of success then others, but there's no real way to support that, it's just speculation.

3/3 1st
3/3 2nd
5/3 3rd +2
3/3 4th
3/3 5ths
2/3 6ths
4/3 7ths +1

So when it all boils down our "superior" drafting and developing has yielded

No more NHL'ers then 14 other teams (or "average")
2 extra 3rd round picks
1 extra 7th round pick
1 extra 2nd round pick (if we obsolve blame for the missing 2nd traded before he became GM)

that isn't exactly a massive collection or staggering resume. It maybe above average, but only slightly.


Combine that with the fact that we've only added 1 significant young "long term" asset from outside the organization in Frolik, and we've acquired 5 "short term" or "insiginificant" players elsewise, I think it's entirely reasonable to not be overly double plussed with the jets drafting.


The argument seems to hinge on the idea that Chevy's inaction as far as player movement goes has been made up for in his drafting/steady approach. Unfortunately, his player movement/etc has been generally underwhelming while his drafting has at this point, from a non speculative view, has been barely above average.


I agree with drafting and being patient and everything, but the fact is Chevy hasn't even done this significantly better then any other organization up until this point. The proof will obviously be in the pudding in 3 + years, but for now, I don't buy the hype.

I appreciate it, and i like what he's doing, but if he continues his inaction through this season/into next season I simply can't support him. With this method he has to be above average in player acquisition as well, and he hasn't until this point. We etiher need to become far better then "top 14" at drafting, or become better at moving/acquiring NHLers.

I agree with you in general that he needs to start getting better at player acquisition through other means but I have given him a pass up until this point due to a piss poor asset base upon which to trade for players. If its status quo going into next year I will agree but I don't believe it will be.

As you said the proof will be in the pudding with regards to drafting I'm another couple of years. I disagree with your notion that they are at best above average on the basis of how many players they have in the league vs others. That runs completely against the development aspect ofthe model. For instance i dont consider teams like Buffalo that are rushing all of their picks into the league superior at drafting. I would rather focus on quality and that won't be determined for a number of years.

 

[YWGinYYZ]

IMHO: the inaction is due to a very unique series of events regarding the salary cap. In my opinion, Chevy has locked up valuable core assets that could be parlayed in future for other pieces, once the cap starts to rise. This year: the cap is too restrictive, and too many teams are right up against the cap wall.

You don't think that Kane's contract will look good to another team after the cap rises a bit? What about Buff's? Etc.

I will bet a large number of drinks or vCash that: if the Jets are out of the playoffs come trade deadline, we'll see a large sell-off of our UFAs. I will also bet that he will be active during the off-season, both with trades and with FAs. Right now? Too many complications regarding having to give/take on salary to make any sort of deal work, even if he wanted to.

Combine that with some other potential depth coming up from within the organization to provide cap relief via ELC's, and the flexibility he will have with a core locked up at a reasonable rate with a rising cap is very exciting.

Final thought: I seriously doubt that "Draft and Develop" means "Never trade or acquire FAs" - I just don't think the waters have been right this year due to the cap. Additionally, hindsight is a wonderful thing, but he HAS gone after FA talent - Olli was arguably the best centre available that year - not Chevy's fault that his production immediately took a nose dive. Frolik was a solid add, and Seto was also a decent (though less successful add). I also agree with other posters regarding the terrible talent base with which to make deals - if we're waiver wire kings, what does that say about our ability to make deals with the dregs that we used to have in our farm system?

 

[Aavco Cup]

Was acquiring Frolik inaction?

Was acquiring Setoguchi inaction?

Was signing Jokinen and Pony inaction?

I think we're collectively mis-remembering things.

 

[tbcwpg]

Was acquiring Frolik inaction?

Was acquiring Setoguchi inaction?

Was signing Jokinen and Pony inaction?

I think we're collectively mis-remembering things.

I think this is a good point. I think when people talk about inaction, they're talking about a lack of impactful action. There has been action.

 

[BigZ65]

The Thing is, Even as Far as Drafting and Developing Goes, Chevy hasn't been much above average.

I think what Holden's getting at (or at least what i'm interpreting/agreeing with) is that a lot (not all) of the "patient" crowd, get their knickers damp and give chevy a big ol' pat on the back for a "superior" drafting plan, when, if you actually separate yourself from the situation, there's no way to really show he's done any better then most other GMs.

We've got 2 draftees playing on the roster since his acquisition. 13 other teams have either:

A)two or more players they've drafted since 2011 playing on their roster
B) had two or more players they drafted since 2011 playing in the NHL
C)Are playing two or more players drafted since 2011 (possibly acquired in trade)

Even if you eliminate C) to avoid any overlay (which their isn't, no players are accounted for twice) the number of teams only drops by 1.


So though Schief and trouba look great, their emergence is at best "just" above average.

Too soon and a crude analysis anyways. How many teams are rushing guys because they are tight to the cap? How many teams have had consistently high picks? How many of those teams are dressing 20 and unders because their team stinks? How many of the picks who are in the NHL were overagers? The Atlanta franchise was raked over the coals for rushing players to the NHL before they were ready, now we're taking a critical view of the number of guys on our NHL roster from the last 3 drafts, particularly when 2 of our 3 1st rounders are emerging as cornerstones on the NHL roster?

 

[Duke749]

Was acquiring Frolik inaction? Good 3rd liner

Was acquiring Setoguchi inaction? Average 2nd liner at best

Was signing Jokinen and Pony inaction? 3rd liner and one who produced worse then a 3rd liner last year

I think we're collectively mis-remembering things.

I think you're overvaluing these guys ten fold. All of these moves made minimal improvement at best. No one is mis-remembering anything. These are not moves to take you to the next step(which for us is the playoffs). So I don't see the point is getting all excited about it.

 

[YWGinYYZ]

I think you're overvaluing these guys ten fold. All of these moves made minimal improvement at best. No one is mis-remembering anything. These are not moves to take you to the next step(which for us is the playoffs). So I don't see the point is getting all excited about it.

To be fair, Aavco didn't put a value to them, but simply stated that Chevy took some action to acquire them. Hindsight is also a funny thing: Olli was not considered a 3rd line player at the time of acquisition.

 

[tbcwpg]

To be fair, Aavco didn't put a value to them, but simply stated that Chevy took some action to acquire them. Hindsight is also a funny thing: Olli was not considered a 3rd line player at the time of acquisition.

I also think that, when it comes to Frolik, we were missing a very good 3rd line guy like him, so I don't think that we are "over-valuing" him at all. Winning teams have all parts. He's a 3rd line guy who's responsible defensively and can score from time to time. Just because he's not a top line 60-point guy doesn't mean that his addition wasn't useful.

 

[YWGinYYZ]

I also think that, when it comes to Frolik, we were missing a very good 3rd line guy like him, so I don't think that we are "over-valuing" him at all. Winning teams have all parts. He's a 3rd line guy who's responsible defensively and can score from time to time. Just because he's not a top line 60-point guy doesn't mean that his addition wasn't useful.

Yes: more Frolik, less Wright/Tangradi/Thorburn et al, until there are cap issues.