[collapse=432]
Any long term deal with Barrie would have taken him "right to UFA," as you put it.
Anything a day beyond the 2017-18 season, which was the Barrie camp's goal all along.
As is, it's four years of Barrie at a very friendly cap hit. Giving 7 or 8 years for a Barrie type of player is simply silly, only franchise players deserve that commitment
What's silly is assuming a GM wouldn't sign a useful young top four defender to 7 or 8 years if the option was at all on the table. Barrie's goal the entire way along was to make as much money as possible as fast as possible; he not only got that relative to his peers, but is earning a more-than-fair paycheck for the time being. Perfectly played- not so for the Avs.
, so while 1-2 years more would have been preferable, ideally 5 years, he hardly got taken to school, or anything remotely close to it.
So you admit Sakic didn't get the best deal possible...
Your changing tune from then compared to now (back then a bridge deal, giving Barrie even more time to prove how much he was worth, was the dumbest thing Sakic could have done - and now it would have been preferable) says it all about the silliness of your argument.
...and yet, again, I am the silly one. Strike two for Sakic.
And none of that is remotely relevant.
The performance of the team Sakic is supposed to be managing is irrelevant. Wow, that's quite a world to live in! GM for life, I suppose. If there are no benchmarks, after all, he should/can never be fired.
Unfortunately all teams don't get a what - 13.5% chance to bail them out? The Lacroix's managed a terrible rebuild, Sakic has to rectify that. Your mistake is assuming that he could have just waved his hands and fixed the numerous issues with the franchise he inherited. He's made mistakes, no doubt, any rookie GM would, but he's done a decent job.
Sakic walked into the smoldering remains of a terrible rebuild, and apparently decided he wanted to try and one-up it. Either that, or he's just not good at his job. I'll let you decide which is the case.
Your subtle and nuanced analysis is at a childlike level quite frankly here. Your logic is "player X has more points, therefore the team that traded player X lost!"
Yes, how dare I use points to evaluate a deal in which three out of the four remaining assets on both sides are forwards! How heinous!
You're ignoring position, age, development, you name it. Every one of the five pieces the Avs eventually got in return for ROR were 21 or under at the time - two were not even drafted - yet here you are trying to do a cross-comparison of what everyone has done in the NHL just two years later...not even mentioning the fact that 3/5 pieces in return have yet to even play in the NHL. That is some of the dumbest logic I've seen on this board in a while, and that is something.
So, to the bolded- it's almost as though Sakic and co. had control over what they could have returned... like, and I want to say, almost like he was in a role to influence the outcome of that deal somehow... or that the Avalanche, as a whole, had the ability to... I don't know... choose the assets they wanted from another team.
But sure, it's not Sakic's or the team's fault they traded ROR for magic beans that are more spoiled seeds than viable plants as of today.
Hint: The "but they haven't played in the NHL yet!!111!!" excuse depreciates every year that that doesn't happen. Not to mention the ones that are are no great shakes as players, and, well... I'll let those who aren't Avs fans decide if that was a great return or not.
Aren't you also the guy who thought the Avs had gotten Jeremy Roy as part of the deal for ROR?
I might have been; it was some time ago. However, if that was the case, that that particular detail actually makes the trade worse for Sakic is quite funny.
Zadorov is not just a #5 this year, I see you went to NHL.com and checked ice time before posting. His minutes have been controlled in key situations - such as in third periods - but he's been on the top pairing every night with EJ, has the best CF% among all Avs defenders, and has easily been one of the brightest spots on the team. In terms of development he looks way better than last year. They are handling him carefully and holding him back offensively while working on his defensive game, but Zadorov has looked far calmer, far more poised, and under far more control than he was last season, when he often looked panicky. At least you just admitted you haven't bothered to watch him play before that brilliant hot take
lol, the only hot take here is somehow trying to divine #5 minutes = top pairing. You can try and apply any "controlled" or "key situations" you want, but the facts are what they are; Zadorov is not only not a top pair defender, he's not even a top four.
I think you have proven, again, that trying to debate you is pretty pointless, since you make things up as you go to patch in your numerous knowledge gaps. For someone who advocates logic, some of the above "logic" makes me feel like smashing my head into a wall. Please don't crack out the champagne quite yet.
I'm liable to smash my own head into a wall trying to figure out how, exactly, playing the fifth-most minutes out of six players on a nightly basis makes Player X a team's #2 most-used/best, but I'll leave that task to someone who values their well-being less than I do. As was the case in the summer, there's a whole lot of fantasizing and hand-waving going on here, but as usual it's not coming from my side.
Now on to Trouba.
There's nothing to "save" Chevy here. He's perfectly aware of what he's done, as is ownership, as are the fans. Trouba created this mess, not Chevy, and Chevy was put in a pretty mediocre position.
And yet he somehow made it worse. It's like being that guy the movie 127 Hours was based on, but deciding not only to cut off his arm, but also both legs as well.
A player, in a small market that might have trouble retaining talent, got on his high horse and requested a trade, wouldn't even talk a contract, and, to make it better, apparently decided to direct where he goes by saying he won't sign in Canada. Chevy doesn't need to be saved because he's blameless here.
Right, he'd be blameless if he complied and tried to make the best of it. He still hasn't done that, and now has a veritable ticking time bomb in the form of the December 1st signing deadline. He's officially not blameless in making this situation worse for himself and the Jets than it already was.
Why does Chevy have to blink? Trouba is 3 weeks away from bombing his career and missing out on millions. The guy has made what, three million in his career so far? After taxes, that's still a great sum for a 22 year old, but that isn't going to last forever unless he's been brilliant with it. In 3 weeks, Trouba is going to miss out on millions and a year of hockey - which means even more millions lost. If the kid doesn't sign if he's not traded he's an idiot.
Well, let's compare here...
For Chevy, what's the worst that happens? Worst case scenario is he doesn't get an offer he likes, Trouba remains dumb, and Trouba kills his own career by not playing for four years.
One involves a single individual hurting his own career path. The other is a manager of a team- essentially the CEO of a company- hurting his entire organization to spite that one individual. You tell me which is actually the worst/stupidest idea here.
However, the chances of that happening due to how stupid that would be or Trouba are about 0%.
Players have sat out whole seasons before. It's not common, but it happens. I would not be so quick to put that at 0%.
So what's the likely scenario? Chevy has already displayed he won't cave to a bad offer, so either he gets what he wants or Trouba signs a bridge deal and Chevy trades him at his leisure...and Chevy will have set an example for everyone else in Winnipeg.
But we don't know what "bad" or "good" constitutes; we only know what (limited) parameters Chevy has placed on his trade demands, and anything else is unacceptable. As such, he has chosen that specific thing over the well-being of the Jets.
You also grossly over-estimate the impact on "everyone else in Winnipeg"; players will always look out for themselves and their families first. If they don't want to play somewhere- even Chicago, or Pittsburgh- they won't. It's pointless to sewer a season and/or an asset merely because you want to try and set a precedent that may only be in place for your term as GM- and maybe even not that long.
As already established, Trouba won't and wouldn't be with the Jets long term, regardless of how Chevy handled it - so Chevy is utterly blameless there - which means the only thing Chevy has possibly lost here is about a month of whatever return he would have gotten for Trouba already in the lineup.
...plus all those months beforehand when he knew that Trouba refused to negotiate. He had an opportunity prior to things going public; that leverage is gone. As said, Chevy
is to blame for that.
Considering this a developmental year for the Jets, that's not a big loss
And, once again, that makes no sense given the age of the Jets core. That Chevy was even allowed to declare this a "developmental year" was bonkers in the first place. He's run virtually in place since the day he was hired, save for one playoff appearance that ended in a sweep; that's frankly unacceptable.
The big loss you seem to think exists is that Chevy will get a bad return - but obviously no offer so far has been great, so you can't have lost out on something that was never there - and as I'll say below, I don't think Chevy is going to be forced to accept offers that are even worse than offers that were already not good enough.
Again, "bad" return would be anything less than the parameters he's set out for this deal. He painted himself into that corner, not Trouba's agent. That's on Chevy.
Trouba will not get an equal player in return, but he never would have, so Chevy has lost on nothing there.
So then why demand it, sewering a month of the season in the process?
I don't believe any GM would have put an offer forward a month ago, or a couple months ago, and then now not be comfortable with it.
Well, you can believe that... but it doesn't really make sense. If you were Jeff Gorton, and weren't sure what you had in Brady Skjei beyond his 7 NHL games last year, you might have been more inclined to move him for Trouba in the summer. Now he's arguably your second-best blueliner. The impetus is gone, and so is one of Chevy's trade partners.
Obviously no 1 for 1 piece was offered then, otherwise Chevy would have done it (what he has wanted the entire time, as said by valid sources, was a 1 for 1 young defensman - if that was actually offered, it would have been done.
Correct, and that was a stupid limitation to put in place. Again, that's on Chevy.
Since it's not done, it was never offered. Basic deduction), so, despite the fantasy world you created for yourself earlier in which Chevy could have gotten back Werenski or Provorov had he simply pulled the trigger earlier, that idea is bunk. Kindly provide a source for your claims, or stop polluting this thread with made-up fantasies of what could have been if it wasn't for stupid "Kev."
Wait, so because Chevy has refused to take less than equal value for Trouba from what you agree are "valid sources", I have to still prove that he was offered less than equal value and refused? I mean... the answer is right there. Do you really need me to point it out for you? Would maybe underlining the relevant portion help- perhaps bolding it too?
Understanding that had a 1 for 1 deal been offered, it would have already been done, we can safely assume that no such deal was ever tabled, barring you providing a source for your claims.
I would agree none was forthcoming. It makes no sense for another team. Hence, Chevy either a) has intentionally chosen to refuse to trade Trouba, and thus has chosen to make his team worse b) didn't and doesn't understand that no one would give him equal value.
Neither conclusion is especially flattering to Chevy. I'll let you choose which one you like most.
As such, what Chevy was likely offered from the start was pieces that wouldn't hurt the other team - and those offers are logically still on the table now, as no team is going to pass on a 22 year old right handed top four defensman for pieces that don't hurt their club to lose...which means Chevy has probably lost very little here in terms of offers.
So you admit that Chevy could have made a deal months ago, but chose not to. Got it. How again does that make him a skilled GM? I mean, you've gone in circles to defend his thinking... but at no point have you actually shown how his thinking is in any way helpful to the Jets or, indeed, to finding a solution to this problem.
No doubt that would have been fantastic for Trouba and the acquiring team. Get Trouba for pieces it doesn't hurt to lose, and the Jets look weak with an RFA.
Which, apparently, is what you expect to happen, based on:
"no team is going to pass on a 22 year old right handed top four defensman for pieces that don't hurt their club to lose"
Ergo, Chevy will have to accept less than his asking price- something you note he could have done at any point- and has therefore dragged this soap opera out for longer than he needed to. Not a good look for him, and certainly not a "strong" one.
Keep up the crocodile tears, though. I am sure that saying "alas" a few more teams will really drive your point home.
Alas, the facts and simple logic have once again shown your defense of the ROR and Barrie situations to be faulty, and Chevy's handling of Trouba just as negligent. I'm sorry to have to keep doing this to you, but you're apparently a glutton for punishment.[/collapse]
