Confirmed with Link: Frolik Signs [1yr 3.3M]

[YWGinYYZ]

We're not going to agree on this MS, and now you're putting words into my mouth and making assumptions about my stance. I understand your position, but don't agree.

 

[DK59]

You aren't answering my contention. You don't SEEM to understand but I don't believe that is the case. Reasons just don't count. That's all. It doesn't matter how good they may be. Chevy gets the big money to get the job done. Not to try hard. Not to have good reasons for failure. There is a need to succeed and that is what he is there for.

He made the excuse himself. He said sometimes you can't get the deal done in the time you have. He didn't use all the time he had. He could have negotiated until 30 seconds before the arbitrators decision came down. He didn't. This wasn't about the amount of time. Both sides dig in until time runs out. Then one or the other gives in. Chevy didn't bother. He gave up early. Walsh must have been asking himself WTF just happened here?

Why are you SO ANXIOUS to accept that Walsh was holding on hard for a sum that was completely out of reach and that there was no possibility of him coming down in the remaining 2 days of negotiating time? You are assuming that is the reason for the failure and of course it could be true. It is equally likely that Chevy decided to play hardball. But neither way explains giving in early.

Yes it was more than Chevy was willing to pay. We all know that. You are happy with that no matter what the number? That is just illogical!

The 'all the cards' thing you are standing by applies to every single player who can see free agency a year away. Should we expect and accept that every one of them is going to UFA?

If Chevy turns around and makes a brilliant trade and gets FULL value for Frolik he will have rescued the situation. I'll give him full credit if he even gets 90% of full value. But this negotiation will still have been a failure.

In this particular instance I completely disagree with how you are defining failure. When it comes to negotiating contracts Chevy's job is to maximize the value of the asset and ultimately success or failure needs to be assessed based on that principal.

Obviously the first objective is to sign the player to a long term contract that is at a cost that provides value to the team both now and in the future. Signing the player to a contract value that exceeds what the player is worth results in an asset that has negative value, the Pavelec contract being an excellent example. Clearly the gap between the two sides for a longer term contract was too big and the situation ended in a temporary stale mate and they chose to sign a one year deal. Personally I do not want our GM being pressured into making long term deals with players that run the risk of being bad deals because we chose to overpay in order to keep a player under our control. So I do not consider this being a failure but an example of our GM showing prudence and good judgement.

In this particular case the best way to maximize the value of the asset may end up being to trade him prior to the deadline. Clearly it is not the ideal situation but if the player continues to hold out for a contract value that is well above the value the team has for that player the best result will be a trade.

I also do not consider this to be an alarming situation because Chevy has been successful at negotiating contracts with other key players and he has also shown the willingness to pay players what they are worth. Really this is the first situation where he has run into a snag in the negotiations, but it is still possible that a long term contract can be negotiated before the end of the year.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

We're not going to agree on this MS, and now you're putting words into my mouth and making assumptions about my stance. I understand your position, but don't agree.

No, clearly we are not going to agree. I don't think I put any 'words in your mouth'. I went back and reread it to be sure. The one place where I thought you might have taken it that way it was a question. However if I did I apologize. No disrespect was intended. I generally enjoy your posts and I respect your opinions. Don't always agree but do respect. Quite honestly, I don't understand your position but I won't go back into it. Maybe I am missing something.

 

[puck stoppa]

No, clearly we are not going to agree. I don't think I put any 'words in your mouth'. I went back and reread it to be sure. The one place where I thought you might have taken it that way it was a question. However if I did I apologize. No disrespect was intended. Quite the opposite. Quite honestly, I don't understand your position but I won't go back into it. Maybe I am missing something.

This is way OT but you have almost as many posts in 2 months as me in 4 years! You eager beaver!

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

In this particular instance I completely disagree with how you are defining failure. When it comes to negotiating contracts Chevy's job is to maximize the value of the asset and ultimately success or failure needs to be assessed based on that principal.

Obviously the first objective is to sign the player to a long term contract that is at a cost that provides value to the team both now and in the future. Signing the player to a contract value that exceeds what the player is worth results in an asset that has negative value, the Pavelec contract being an excellent example. Clearly the gap between the two sides for a longer term contract was too big and the situation ended in a temporary stale mate and they chose to sign a one year deal. Personally I do not want our GM being pressured into making long term deals with players that run the risk of being bad deals because we chose to overpay in order to keep a player under our control. So I do not consider this being a failure but an example of our GM showing prudence and good judgement.

In this particular case the best way to maximize the value of the asset may end up being to trade him prior to the deadline. Clearly it is not the ideal situation but if the player continues to hold out for a contract value that is well above the value the team has for that player the best result will be a trade.

I also do not consider this to be an alarming situation because Chevy has been successful at negotiating contracts with other key players and he has also shown the willingness to pay players what they are worth. Really this is the first situation where he has run into a snag in the negotiations, but it is still possible that a long term contract can be negotiated before the end of the year.

We're getting into semantics now. I agree with what you are saying. Ultimately the success or failure of this situation overall will depend on getting value for an asset. The negotiation stage has ended in failure. He failed to negotiate an acceptable contract for whatever reason. The situation can be rescued by getting value for the asset some other way, a trade. The negotiation will still be a failure. Is it alarming? By itself, no because it is one instance so does not constitute a trend. It is disappointing. It is alarming only because we haven't seen anything to give me confidence in Chevy's ability to make a successful trade but we will have to wait and see about that. Neither does he have a history of bad trades. Maybe this is what it takes to push him to make a good one.

 

[dobiezeke*]

Basically the post was saying that I do not have facts to support my stance. Just the blurbs I've read on Twitter, (Walsh with a 5MM starting point, both sides wanting long term deal), my feelings about what good GM's get accomplished, and Chevy's recent failures to make what I consider to be the correct moves.

Once again, it's pretty much all opinion on my part.

So basically there is no evidence to support Chevy crapping the bed. Therefore the opinion that Frolik/Walsh made it clear that they did not want a long term contract in Winnipeg is as valid as all the posts claiming Chevy failed to get a better contract.

Why do you think Frolik would have signed long term in Winnipeg if he could better his position after the upcoming season to be picked up at the trade deadline by a contender? Isn't that what all players want? The chance to compete for the cup? Not much Chevy or any manager of a non-playoff team can do to sway that mentality.

 

[dobiezeke*]

We're getting into semantics now. I agree with what you are saying. Ultimately the success or failure of this situation overall will depend on getting value for an asset. The negotiation stage has ended in failure. He failed to negotiate an acceptable contract for whatever reason. The situation can be rescued by getting value for the asset some other way, a trade. The negotiation will still be a failure. Is it alarming? By itself, no because it is one instance so does not constitute a trend. It is disappointing. It is alarming only because we haven't seen anything to give me confidence in Chevy's ability to make a successful trade but we will have to wait and see about that. Neither does he have a history of bad trades. Maybe this is what it takes to push him to make a good one.

If Frolik and Walsh made their stand 2 days prior to the signing deadline, what could Chevy do in the last 30 minutes? Not sure how you can so adamantly bash Chevy for failing to take it to the last second when you have no idea what the player/agent had stated is their stance.

Complain about Chevy and his lack of signings...I get that. When no one knows what was stated by the parties in a negotiation the ridicule for one side is farcical.

 

[Jet]

So basically there is no evidence to support Chevy crapping the bed. Therefore the opinion that Frolik/Walsh made it clear that they did not want a long term contract in Winnipeg is as valid as all the posts claiming Chevy failed to get a better contract.

Why do you think Frolik would have signed long term in Winnipeg if he could better his position after the upcoming season to be picked up at the trade deadline by a contender? Isn't that what all players want? The chance to compete for the cup? Not much Chevy or any manager of a non-playoff team can do to sway that mentality.

Well if we are going by the very few 'facts' we have here, that would be incorrect. Walsh and Chevy both said they were eager to do a long term deal, and that Frolik wanted to say. Whether that is lip service or not we don't know.

Unfortunately, especially with the Jets we are not afforded a lot of facts so most of what we discuss here is based on past performance and opinion. If this forum was completely fact discussion only we might as well just shut er down right now.

The things I know:

- I have been disappointed by Cheveldayoff ESPECIALLY from the TD on.
- Good GM's get the job done. They get their key players signed.
- Good GM's don't give RFA's with one year left till UFA a 1 year deal. If people thought Chevy had no leverage before this deal? He has even less now AND what's worse, there will be competition right around the corner to wrest Frolik away from us.

So, yes. I do not know what Walsh was asking. It could be 7MMX10. However, considering the amicable comments from both sides I am going to say that's not likely.

I think Chevy (AGAIN, gut feeling, no fact) was trying to be a shrewd negotiator when he should have been realizing that he needed to lock up an important asset that WANTS TO BE HERE. Especially since he failed on countless FA's this summer.

People say Chevy has negotiated good contracts. For the most part, that may be true but I'd bet that if Little, Ladd, Wheeler, Kane had known what a ****show this was going to become they may not have been as willing to sign those deals. I'd bet they were thinking that the org. was building something and you've seen over the past year that the cracks are starting to form.

I guess we won't know the end result until Fro is either re-signed or jettisoned, but I have little faith that Chevy has the savvy to turn this into a good ending. Hopefully he'll prove me wrong.

If Frolik and Walsh made their stand 2 days prior to the signing deadline, what could Chevy do in the last 30 minutes? Not sure how you can so adamantly bash Chevy for failing to take it to the last second when you have no idea what the player/agent had stated is their stance.

Complain about Chevy and his lack of signings...I get that. When no one knows what was stated by the parties in a negotiation the ridicule for one side is farcical.

I take issue with 'ridicule' and 'farcical'. This is an opinion based forum. We are giving our opinions. How do we do that? We form them by using facts and past behaviour, and trends. If we didn't do that, then what would the point of discussing things here be?

You: We have no facts, therefore we can't comment.
Me: Yup.

No fun.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

If Frolik and Walsh made their stand 2 days prior to the signing deadline, what could Chevy do in the last 30 minutes? Not sure how you can so adamantly bash Chevy for failing to take it to the last second when you have no idea what the player/agent had stated is their stance.

Complain about Chevy and his lack of signings...I get that. When no one knows what was stated by the parties in a negotiation the ridicule for one side is farcical.

Semantics again. I have bashed Chevy at times, for good reason. When I say he failed in this negotiation it is Chevy neutral. He set out to do something. He didn't get it done whether for good reason or not is irrelevant at that point. If he set out to fly and fell to the ground he failed. The reason is gravity. That doesn't alter the fact that he failed. Whatever was said in negotiation, whatever the reason this didn't get done doesn't alter the fact it was a failure.

Moving on from labeling it a failure to evaluating Chevy with it is a different step. I am stating that the position Chevy is in is one where only results count. That doesn't mean he is not allowed ANY mistakes or failures. It means his performance will be judged on the results he gets. If he gets value for the asset it will be a success in the end. If his team starts winning more any failures along the way will be forgotten. The negotiation itself will still have been a failure - because it didn't succeed - but Chevy will be judged on the larger result.

Excusing the failed negotiation is something else again. Chevy has not tried to excuse himself by pointing the finger at Walsh. He hasn't said the salary demands were unreasonable or that the other side was rigid and unwilling to move or negotiate. He may still think he has a chance to sign Fro in January (who knows, it could happen). He knows there may be other negotiations with Walsh in the future so there is nothing to be gained by antagonizing him. Whatever, Chevy has not made that excuse and yet some people seem very anxious to just give it to him. While it may be true it also may not. It is just an assumption.

Chevy HAS said they didn't have enough time to get it done. That makes no sense. The negotiation isn't about time. It is about leverage, pressure, competing wants and needs. Agreeing on a deal takes no time at all when the 2 parties needs bring them to the same place. Chevy had more time available. He chose not to use it. That is a bit of a head-scratcher. You have to go through thye process to see if the other side is going to bend or not. Not that the time would have made a difference but the pressure changes as a deadline approaches.

So the bottom line is that so far he has failed with Frolik. I hope he recovers the situation. It isn't over until Frolik walks with nothing in return.

 

[surixon]

Semantics again. I have bashed Chevy at times, for good reason. When I say he failed in this negotiation it is Chevy neutral. He set out to do something. He didn't get it done whether for good reason or not is irrelevant at that point. If he set out to fly and fell to the ground he failed. The reason is gravity. That doesn't alter the fact that he faileds said in negotiation, whatever the reason this didn't get done doesn't alter the fact it was a failure.

Moving on from labeling it a failure to evaluating Chevy with it is a different step. I am stating that the position Chevy is in is one where only results count. That doesn't mean he is not allowed ANY mistakes or failures. It means his performance will be judged on the results he gets. If he gets value for the asset it will be a success in the end. If his team starts winning more any failures along the way will be forgotten. The negotiation itself will still have been a failure - because it didn't succeed - but Chevy will be judged on the larger result.

Excusing the failed negotiation is something else again. Chevy has not tried to excuse himself by pointing the finger at Walsh. He hasn't said the salary demands were unreasonable or that the other side was rigid and unwilling to move or negotiate. He may still think he has a chance to sign Fro in January (who knows, it could happen). He knows there may be other negotiations with Walsh in the future so there is nothing to be gained by antagonizing him. Whatever, Chevy has not made that excuse and yet some people seem very anxious to just give it to him. While it may be true it also may not. It is just an assumption.

Chevy HAS said they didn't have enough time to get it done. That makes no sense. The negotiation isn't about time. It is about leverage, pressure, competing wants and needs. Agreeing on a deal takes no time at all when the 2 parties needs bring them to the same place. Chevy had more time available. He chose not to use it. That is a bit of a head-scratcher. You have to go through thye process to see if the other side is going to bend or not. Not that the time would have made a difference but the pressure changes as a deadline approaches.

So the bottom line is that so far he has failed with Frolik. I hope he recovers the situation. It isn't over until Frolik walks with nothing in return.

We have no idea how the time was used by either parties so blasting Chevy only for not using it isnt fair. It could have easily been Walsh who was stalling and wasting time. I don't agree that failure to not come to a long term deal is a negotiating failure. Also what did you expect him to say publicly after the negotiation ended. He was civil for the exact same reason Walsh was, he wanted to keep the relationship in good standing.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

We have no idea how the time was used by either parties so blasting Chevy only for not using it isnt fair. It could have easily been Walsh who was stalling and wasting time. I don't agree that failure to not come to a long term deal is a negotiating failure. Also what did you expect him to say publicly after the negotiation ended. He was civil for the exact same reason Walsh was, he wanted to keep the relationship in good standing.

What we know about the time is that there was some of it left.

If the negotiation was not a failure then it was a success. There simply IS no in between. The job either got done or it didn't. I wonder if there is something wrong with the way I am expressing that because this is not a matter of opinion. It is something that just is. If there were a number of different goals and some were achieved and some were not it could be called a partial success or partial failure but that is not the case here. Maybe if a contract had been signed for 2 or 3 years instead of 4-5-6 you could call it a partial but that didn't happen. People aren't calling it a partial. They are not calling it a success but they seem unable to swallow the WORD failure.

Chevy's words were diplomatic. I said that in the post you are quoting.

 

[surixon]

Semantics again. I have bashed Chevy at times, for good reason. When I say he failed in this negotiation it is Chevy neutral. He set out to do something. He didn't get it done whether for good reason or not is irrelevant at that point. If he set out to fly and fell to the ground he failed. The reason is gravity. That doesn't alter the fact that he faileds said in negotiation, whatever the reason this didn't get done doesn't alter the fact it was a failure.

Moving on from labeling it a failure to evaluating Chevy with it is a different step. I am stating that the position Chevy is in is one where only results count. That doesn't mean he is not allowed ANY mistakes or failures. It means his performance will be judged on the results he gets. If he gets value for the asset it will be a success in the end. If his team starts winning more any failures along the way will be forgotten. The negotiation itself will still have been a failure - because it didn't succeed - but Chevy will be judged on the larger result.

Excusing the failed negotiation is something else again. Chevy has not tried to excuse himself by pointing the finger at Walsh. He hasn't said the salary demands were unreasonable or that the other side was rigid and unwilling to move or negotiate. He may still think he has a chance to sign Fro in January (who knows, it could happen). He knows there may be other negotiations with Walsh in the future so there is nothing to be gained by antagonizing him. Whatever, Chevy has not made that excuse and yet some people seem very anxious to just give it to him. While it may be true it also may not. It is just an assumption.

Chevy HAS said they didn't have enough time to get it done. That makes no sense. The negotiation isn't about time. It is about leverage, pressure, competing wants and needs. Agreeing on a deal takes no time at all when the 2 parties needs bring them to the same place. Chevy had more time available. He chose not to use it. That is a bit of a head-scratcher. You have to go through thye process to see if the other side is going to bend or not. Not that the time would have made a difference but the pressure changes as a deadline approaches.

So the bottom line is that so far he has failed with Frolik. I hope he recovers the situation. It isn't over until Frolik walks with nothing in return.

We have no idea how the time was used by either parties so blasting Chevy only for not using it isnt fair. It could have easily been Walsh who was stalling and wasting time. I don't agree that failure to not come to a long term deal is a negotiating failure. Also what did you expect him to say publicly after the negotiation ended. He was civil for the exact same reason Walsh was, he wanted to keep the relationship in good standing.

 

[TCsmyth]

To me there is a lot of bizarre comments in this thread regarding failure, bad use of time, etc. In listening to the parties, there is one thing that is crystal clear to me...neither wanted to go to arb. That includes the fact that neither wanted to exchange briefs (meaning what you are going to say I arb). They both said let's settle on a number for now.

Failure? How do we know that Walsh didn't fail? Maybe Froliks instructions were to get a 5 year deal done in Winnipeg for no less than X$. We know that Chevy has a budget and bosses that he has to answer to, and a number he is not prepared to go over. Failure to me is if this asset walks for nothing as a UFA...as far as I'm concerned Frolik shows up in September in the Jets dressing room.

BTW, my predictions are that Frolik is in Winnipeg long term, and that Burmi is back next training camp in the NHL. Those that are all up in arms and saying Chevy should have signed Fro long term now or else he is going to have to take Walsh's number later...think about it - aren't you possibly advocating the exact same thing with your reasoning?

 

[JetsFan815]

To me there is a lot of bizarre comments in this thread regarding failure, bad use of time, etc. In listening to the parties, there is one thing that is crystal clear to me...neither wanted to go to arb. That includes the fact that neither wanted to exchange briefs (meaning what you are going to say I arb). They both said let's settle on a number for now.

Failure? How do we know that Walsh didn't fail? Maybe Froliks instructions were to get a 5 year deal done in Winnipeg for no less than X$. We know that Chevy has a budget and bosses that he has to answer to, and a number he is not prepared to go over. Failure to me is if this asset walks for nothing as a UFA...as far as I'm concerned Frolik shows up in September in the Jets dressing room.

BTW, my predictions are that Frolik is in Winnipeg long term, and that Burmi is back next training camp in the NHL. Those that are all up in arms and saying Chevy should have signed Fro long term now or else he is going to have to take Walsh's number later...think about it - aren't you possibly advocating the exact same thing with your reasoning?

Nothing is ever Chevy's fault. Chevy must be the most unluckiest guy in the world. It's like that movie with Matt Damon and Emily Blunt with dudes in hats working on the universe's behalf to make sure they don't get together, Chevy must be a victim of a similar conspiracy

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

To me there is a lot of bizarre comments in this thread regarding failure, bad use of time, etc. In listening to the parties, there is one thing that is crystal clear to me...neither wanted to go to arb. That includes the fact that neither wanted to exchange briefs (meaning what you are going to say I arb). They both said let's settle on a number for now.

Failure? How do we know that Walsh didn't fail? Maybe Froliks instructions were to get a 5 year deal done in Winnipeg for no less than X$. We know that Chevy has a budget and bosses that he has to answer to, and a number he is not prepared to go over. Failure to me is if this asset walks for nothing as a UFA...as far as I'm concerned Frolik shows up in September in the Jets dressing room.

BTW, my predictions are that Frolik is in Winnipeg long term, and that Burmi is back next training camp in the NHL. Those that are all up in arms and saying Chevy should have signed Fro long term now or else he is going to have to take Walsh's number later...think about it - aren't you possibly advocating the exact same thing with your reasoning?

Failure selected definitions:
to not succeed : to end without success : lack of success : The condition or fact of not achieving the desired end or ends.

Success selected definitions:
the accomplishment of an aim or purpose. : the favorable or prosperous termination of attempts or endeavors : The achievement of something desired, planned, or attempted.

We know that Chevy did not get the desired result = failure.
We do not know whether Walsh got his desired result or not. If he did not then he failed also. If he did then he succeeded.
It is apparent that Chevy did not want to go to arb. We don't know whether Walsh wanted that or not.
Dealing with the Frolik situation can be a success if he is traded but this negotiation will still have failed to achieve its stated goal.
Frolik may still sign in January. I don't believe that looks likely right now. Very much a matter of opinion.
I'm not going to discuss Burmi in this context. That is very complicated at best. The KHL is apparently in some financial difficulty right now. Some franchises are suspending operation. Those kinds of things only make it less predictable. Who knows?

 

[cbcwpg]

Failure?

As long as there is the possibility of a deal and they are still talking ( even unofficially ), I will not consider what happened between Chevy and Walsh re: Frolik a failure... BUT, if Frolik ends up walking and we get nothing in return, then yes, that will be an abject failure. No question.

 

[YWGinYYZ]

Nothing is ever Chevy's fault. Chevy must be the most unluckiest guy in the world. It's like that movie with Matt Damon and Emily Blunt with dudes in hats working on the universe's behalf to make sure they don't get together, Chevy must be a victim of a similar conspiracy

What does this add to the conversation? If you've read the posts, no one is giving him a pass on this - if we end up with nothing (no signed Frolik, or no assets via a trade), it's a failure.

 

[surixon]

To me there is a lot of bizarre comments in this thread regarding failure, bad use of time, etc. In listening to the parties, there is one thing that is crystal clear to me...neither wanted to go to arb. That includes the fact that neither wanted to exchange briefs (meaning what you are going to say I arb). They both said let's settle on a number for now.

Failure? How do we know that Walsh didn't fail? Maybe Froliks instructions were to get a 5 year deal done in Winnipeg for no less than X$. We know that Chevy has a budget and bosses that he has to answer to, and a number he is not prepared to go over. Failure to me is if this asset walks for nothing as a UFA...as far as I'm concerned Frolik shows up in September in the Jets dressing room.

BTW, my predictions are that Frolik is in Winnipeg long term, and that Burmi is back next training camp in the NHL. Those that are all up in arms and saying Chevy should have signed Fro long term now or else he is going to have to take Walsh's number later...think about it - aren't you possibly advocating the exact same thing with your reasoning?

This sums up my thoughts. This only becomes a failure if he walks for nothing next year. BTW nobody is giving Chevy a pass, but the amount of one sided bashing that he takes for this negotiation is ridiculous. It takes two parties to come to a deal, neither Walsh or Chevy are anymore at fault than the other.

 

[Huffer]

To me there is a big difference between saying:

A) The process to sign Frolik to a long term deal ended in failure

and

B) Chevy was a failure in regards to signing Frolik to a long term deal.

A) indicates that the process ended in failure, and as such, all parties contributed to said result. Without knowing the details, this is an acceptable blanket statement to me, because I don't know if Chevy was being unreasonable in his salary demands and term, or if Frolik was. So with this statement, no one individual party is taking the sole ownership of the failure.

B) This statement is placing the entire burden of signing a player to a contact on the GM, even though it requires the player to agree. A counter point seems to be that because Chevy is the GM, ANY failure to get a desirable player signed is on him because that's his role. And to some extent I do agree that this is at the end of the day his role, but I also understand it takes two to sign. And where I do not place the entire blame of this on Chevy here is because as of right now, we don't have a clue on the numbers that were being discussed. IF, for instance, the Frolik camp was looking for a long term deal at 6 million or so (just using for illustration purposes), and not willing to budge, that leaves Chevy with two options; extend Frolik at 6 million, or agree to this one year deal, I would have considered signing Frolik to a long term deal at 6 million to be the failure.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

This is way OT but you have almost as many posts in 2 months as me in 4 years! You eager beaver!

I'm very lonely and have no life. That and I've been inspired by the people here.

 

[Jetfaninflorida]

I feel like many times we are giving Chevy a free pass or something pretty close to it. He is the GM, it is his job to get these things done. He gets credit when he does things that are perceived to be positive (Perreault signing). Criticism will come his way when he fails to achieve objectives (sign Frolik to a long term deal). To say that the process failed, not Chevy, is as close to a free pass as you can get if you ask me.

Chevy gets paid a lot of money for a set of responsibilities. Those responsibilities don't change when the process yields results or does not yield results for the Winnipeg Jets.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Failure?

As long as there is the possibility of a deal and they are still talking ( even unofficially ), I will not consider what happened between Chevy and Walsh re: Frolik a failure... BUT, if Frolik ends up walking and we get nothing in return, then yes, that will be an abject failure. No question.

I agree with that and have said the same thing several times. The only difference is I am breaking the process into phases. Phase 1 has been a failure. See definitions in post #465. On to phase 2!

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

This sums up my thoughts. This only becomes a failure if he walks for nothing next year. BTW nobody is giving Chevy a pass, but the amount of one sided bashing that he takes for this negotiation is ridiculous. It takes two parties to come to a deal, neither Walsh or Chevy are anymore at fault than the other.

That is where the semantics discussion comes in. Saying that Chevy failed is not the same as assigning BLAME or FAULT. It is a statement of a condition. The condition of that negotiation is 'FAILED'. Assigning fault or blame is another thing. Frolik may have said that all the "I like Winnipeg" and "I want to stay here" stuff was a lie. He might have said he wanted out and would not sign here for all the gold in Fort Knox. The negotiation would still have been a failure. I could say that it is Chevy's FAULT because he is supposed to persuade or induce the player to sign but there is a limit. Of course I don't believe Frolik said that so I am not giving Chevy a pass. What I have said is that he will be judged on the result. In the end. Which is not here yet.

 

[jetkarma*]

Wonder if both sides noted the Sutter deal. Wonder if it mattered?

 

[SCP Guy]

We don't have enough info to make a fair evaluation..... For all we know the jets offered 3.7 and Walsh wanted 4.1 and chevy was wrong not to make a deal.... Or the jets offered 4.1 and Walsh wanted 5.5 and chevy was right to say no.... None of us have any idea who is responsible in this situation.

I blame Mickey Moose and have as much concrete info as those who blame Chevy or fro or Walsh lol