The Jarmo Thread

[Cowumbus]

Cue another round of "wahh we gave up on Zito and Bednar"...

McFarland too

 

[Viqsi]

McFarland too

Oh, yes, him too. But obviously that was then and this is now and so every possible in-house candidate now is obviously inherently a trash hire, Did Not Do The Research, fire everybody, et cetera et cetera and so on.

that said, I admit I would not be in a hurry to promote Flynn and I suspect I am not alone in that regard

 

[Cowumbus]

Oh, yes, him too. But obviously that was then and this is now and so every possible in-house candidate now is obviously inherently a trash hire, Did Not Do The Research, fire everybody, et cetera et cetera and so on.

that said, I admit I would not be in a hurry to promote Flynn and I suspect I am not alone in that regard

FWIW, I have a very good feeling McFarland would come back here if offered a job. GM+ type role.

 

[majormajor]

FWIW, I have a very good feeling McFarland would come back here if offered a job. GM+ type role.

This is his second season as Avs GM, it doesn't seem like the normal time to jump ship, also a damn good team. The Avs can give him an extra title if they want too.

 

[Cowumbus]

This is his second season as Avs GM, it doesn't seem like the normal time to jump ship, also a damn good team. The Avs can give him an extra title if they want too.

Maybe not next season, but don’t underestimate being away from family.

 

[Cyclones Rock]

This is his second season as Avs GM, it doesn't seem like the normal time to jump ship, also a damn good team. The Avs can give him an extra title if they want too.

I think it's very fair to emphasize that he inherited a very nice situation. Very difficult to get an accurate read on his abilities as a GM as of yet. His acquisition of Johansen-even with Nashville retaining 50%-doesn't exactly engender a great deal of confidence from my standpoint.

 

[majormajor]

I think it's very fair to emphasize that he inherited a very nice situation. Very difficult to get an accurate read on his abilities as a GM as of yet. His acquisition of Johansen-even with Nashville retaining 50%-doesn't exactly engender a great deal of confidence from my standpoint.

I haven't liked many of the moves he's made as GM, but per Sakic it was McFarland who was behind many of the moves they made before that.

 

[Jive Pawnbroker]

 

[Cyclones Rock]

Johnny "Hockey" is tied for 248th among forwards in goals scored (7). He's tied for 102 among forwards in points (35).

No goals in his last 15 games. Year 2 of a 7 year almost $10m/season deal.

Has got to be (or will be) on most lists of worst NHL contracts.

Then when one considers Laine, Severson, and Elvis, the CBJ have got to be at or very near the top of the heap for worst bigger money long term deals in the NHL. Zach Werenski's deal is marginally tolerable. Boone's deal is a club bargain-you can't miss 'em all.

How this failed GM-who just "celebrated" the 11th anniversary of his hiring-is allowed to remain employed would be the pro sport world's most vexing question were it not for the team for which he works.

CBJ ticket reps who have comp packages based on season ticket renewals should put themselves on liver transplant lists as a precautionary measure.

 

[Indy18]

Johnny "Hockey" is tied for 248th among forwards in goals scored (7). He's tied for 102 among forwards in points (35).

No goals in his last 15 games. Year 2 of a 7 year almost $10m/season deal.

Has got to be (or will be) on most lists of worst NHL contracts.

Then when one considers Laine, Severson, and Elvis, the CBJ have got to be at or very near the top of the heap for worst bigger money long term deals in the NHL. Zach Werenski's deal is marginally tolerable. Boone's deal is a club bargain-you can't miss 'em all.

How this failed GM-who just "celebrated" the 11th anniversary of his hiring-is allowed to remain employed would be the pro sport world's most vexing question were it not for the team for which he works.

CBJ ticket reps who have comp packages based on season ticket renewals should put themselves on liver transplant lists as a precautionary measure.

The reason he's not a bad contract is he's setting up fantastic chances for his linemates with metrics but the problem is he's a playmaker and his line isn't finishing. He's a complementary player not a finisher. Laine is a PPG player but he's always out but he does produce when he's in. Elvis is the only thing closest to an anchor right now contract wise but our defense in front is set up to be more offensive focus. Also Severson is this year's Gudbranson. Yes he makes mistakes but there is nothing I see that makes me question is long term play. If anything we are not properly utilizing him as he's one of the best first pass defensemen in the league with the mess our transition game can be. Severson was always going to make 5.5-7 mil for 6-7 years for any team in the league. I understand people are upset but some of y'all are acting like Jarmo is giving out contracts that are worth 2mil players for 6.25 contract for no reason.

Also lets be honest 2 years ago if Jarmo turned down a contract for Johnny Hockey y'all would be going down to Nationwide and busting out windows so don't do this whole 20/20 hindsight on us.

If anything you can complain that skillsets that complement our high end players are still needing seasoned with experience (KJ, Russians, Fantilli) or not effective because they are always out (Laine).

 

[Cyclones Rock]

Also lets be honest 2 years ago if Jarmo turned down a contract for Johnny Hockey y'all would be going down to Nationwide and busting out windows so don't do this whole 20/20 hindsight on us.

No. Signing players who have likely peaked who are bumping up on 30 years old are not "no brainers". For anyone who can see beyond the previous year's statistics, there was plenty not to like about the Gaudreau signing.

Blaming others for "not finishing" is grasping at straws. The CBJ are 10th from the bottom in goals scored so 1/3rd of the league "finishes" worse than we do. At this point, it's a bad contract teetering on disasterous.

 

[Cheddarcheese]

No. Signing players who have likely peaked who are bumping up on 30 years old are not "no brainers". For anyone who can see beyond the previous year's statistics, there was plenty not to like about the Gaudreau signing.

Blaming others for "not finishing" is grasping at straws. The CBJ are 10th from the bottom in goals scored so 1/3rd of the league "finishes" worse than we do. At this point, it's a bad contract teetering on disasterous.

he was coming off a 115 point season LOL you sign him everyday of the week.
Johnny has ton of game left you see it! its not his skill hes missing its his effort right now

 

[koteka]

Koteka rule 1: It is so much easier and cheaper to find a capable wing than anything else. Don’t use all your cap space on wings.

Koteka rule 2: No matter what system you run, you need a couple of defensemen who can actually play defense. Because at certain points of the game, you will need to play defense.

 

[Cyclones Rock]

he was coming off a 115 point season LOL you sign him everyday of the week.
Johnny has ton of game left you see it! its not his skill hes missing its his effort right now

Which is more damning than if his skills had deteriorated.

Koteka rule 1: It is so much easier and cheaper to find a capable wing than anything else. Don’t use all your cap space on wings.

Koteka rule 2: No matter what system you run, you need a couple of defensemen who can actually play defense. Because at certain points of the game, you will need to play defense.

Jarmo rule 1; Never heed the Koteka rules

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

Koteka rule 1: It is so much easier and cheaper to find a capable wing than anything else. Don’t use all your cap space on wings.

Koteka rule 2: No matter what system you run, you need a couple of defensemen who can actually play defense. Because at certain points of the game, you will need to play defense.

We need to collect up all of these HFCBJ maxims. Of course, the first and primary is DSL's Principle of Equivalent Criticality.

 

[CBJx614]

Then when one considers Laine, Severson, and Elvis, the CBJ have got to be at or very near the top of the heap for worst bigger money long term deals in the NHL.

I don't think I would consider 4 years long term, his deal is up in 2 seasons, meaning we'll have two chances to maximize a return on him as long as he's able to return and produce at the same rate. I don't think there's ever been an international to sign his next deal as we'll need that money for the next core.

Laine has produced essentially at a PPG over the course of his deal, his pace isn't the issue, it's his health. Which you can't really fault Jarmo or Laine for.

 

[Viqsi]

We need to collect up all of these HFCBJ maxims. Of course, the first and primary is DSL's Principle of Equivalent Criticality.

Hmmmm.

Viqsi's First Law: All Trades Are Needs-Based.
Viqsi's Second Law: Players and picks are not fungible commodities.
Corollary to Viqsi's Second Law: There is no such thing as "objective player/pick value" nor is it practical or possible to create or approximate such a thing.
Viqsi's Quantity-For-Quality Rule: 2-for-1 is possible, 3-for-1 is a stretch, and beyond that don't bother.

There's probably others but those are the ones I keep finding myself reiterating all the time any time a trade is suggested or discussed...

 

[koteka]

Hmmmm.

Viqsi's First Law: All Trades Are Needs-Based.
Viqsi's Second Law: Players and picks are not fungible commodities.
Corollary to Viqsi's Second Law: There is no such thing as "objective player/pick value" nor is it practical or possible to create or approximate such a thing.
Viqsi's Quantity-For-Quality Rule: 2-for-1 is possible, 3-for-1 is a stretch, and beyond that don't bother.

There's probably others but those are the ones I keep finding myself reiterating all the time any time a trade is suggested or discussed...

Bill Bellichek would disagree with 2B. He treated picks like fungible commodities. But maybe that is football. The obvious difference between football and hockey is the age and development of the draftees and whet they are expected to do the season after they are drafted.

Your corollary is interesting. I agree with it somewhat. In hockey there is this idea of a good draft year or bad draft year which adds weight to the idea. The third overall pick in 2023 was worth more than a third overall in other years. But I think it grows more from the perceived quality of draft classes rather than players and picks not being fungible. Or maybe your thought that picks/prospects are not fungible grows out of different perceived values of draft years.

I guess I would say that a top x pick (7? 10? 14?) may not fungible, but a some point you can assess an average value of a pick and a discount for future years and decide this year’s 42nd pick is equal to next year’s 31st pick that plenty of teams would probably agree on. The farther in the draft you go, the more likely this is.

Jack Roslovic is definitely not a fungible asset.

 

[Viqsi]

Bill Bellichek would disagree with 2B. He treated picks like fungible commodities. But maybe that is football. The obvious difference between football and hockey is the age and development of the draftees and whet they are expected to do the season after they are drafted.

Fungibility, simplified, is the concept that your $100 bill is the same as my $100 bill is the same as someone else's five $20 bills. In this context, it's the misapprehension that a given #1C is the same as any other #1C, or a "late 1st" is the same as any other "late 1st". You might be thinking of something closer to (but not quite the same as) liquidity.

 

[koteka]

Fungibility, simplified, is the concept that your $100 bill is the same as my $100 bill is the same as someone else's five $20 bills. In this context, it's the misapprehension that a given #1C is the same as any other #1C, or a "late 1st" is the same as any other "late 1st". You might be thinking of something closer to (but not quite the same as) liquidity.

Liquidity has more to do with conversion to cash. Fungibility has more to do with a store of value to facilitate exchange. Like a bushel of wheat is fungible. We can agree wheat is generally wheat and then we can exchange wheat today for wheat in the future and come to agreement that 10 bushels of wheat today is worth 12 bushels of wheat a year from now.

 

[Viqsi]

Liquidity has more to do with conversion to cash. Fungibility has more to do with a store of value to facilitate exchange. Like a bushel of wheat is fungible. We can agree wheat is generally wheat and then we can exchange wheat today for wheat in the future and come to agreement that 10 bushels of wheat today is worth 12 bushels of wheat a year from now.

Also mostly a fair characterization - but that "today for the future" exchange example is a negotiation taking place rather than an axiomatic determination of objective value. That's the point I'm getting at - we can come to that agreement after discussion, sure, but that depends on us coming to a one-time agreement. (Also, said wheat's fungibility could be questionable if some of those bushels you're offering me are tainted with ergot or something.)

 

[koteka]

(Also, said wheat's fungibility could be questionable if some of those bushels you're offering me are tainted with ergot or something.)

That is why we have the USDA to set standards for fungible commodities like wheat.

For your reading pleasure: https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/WheatStandards.pdf

 

[Viqsi]

That is why we have the USDA to set standards for fungible commodities like wheat.

For your reading pleasure: https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/WheatStandards.pdf

Point. But we're drifting a bit from what the actual original point was, though - that your "late 1st" and my "late 1st" are not fungible. We can work out an exchange rate that we both find agreeable but that's not the same thing.

 

[koteka]

Point. But we're drifting a bit from what the actual original point was, though - that your "late 1st" and my "late 1st" are not fungible. We can work out an exchange rate that we both find agreeable but that's not the same thing.

I say they are fungible. Many people say they are fungible. There is just a limited supply of picks and teams so we don’t have NHL draft picks at the Chicago Board of Trade. So everything is negotiated face to face. Like in olden times where we could have been neighboring farmers on the banks of the Olentangy. If I have a surplus of wheat this year and your sheep got loose and ate a bunch of your wheat, I might trade you 10 bushels this year for 12 bushels of yours next year.

But we can agree to disagree.

 

[CBJWerenski8]

He’s fired

Go here

Confirmed with Link: - Jarmo Fired

forums.hfboards.com