What would change your assessment of Chevy? [Mod edit: title]
- Thread starter Samcanadian
- Start date
- Status
Puckatron 3000
Glitchy Prototype
Heh. That's what you took away from my post, White Out? That the "sun will rise" comment was an argument on how Chevy will succeed? I guess I'm just going to leave that alone.
To mods: this is an interesting opinion I want to reply to. But obviously this thread has largely become about Chevy's plan and the direction of the team. Can we just make a thread on that? It seems a relevant discussion. Or is it off limits for being too inflammatory a topic? I noticed the Chevy /management mega-thread has been closed.
I'll reply here for now.
______________
I think this is the best argument against Chevy's chosen course of action. Chevy's plan has hinged on the young guys maturing fast enough to be competitive while the retained players of the older core are still relevant. Otherwise he shouldn't have signed Buff. And should be looking to trade Wheeler, Little, and Enstrom (or have done so already).
I do think we become contenders soon enough. But I understand someone with doubts. There's a lot of unknowns in a team with so much youth. And also unknowns in how well the vets will age. It's a gamble. But it would have been a gamble to go full rebuild and sell everyone off, too.
Very well laid out. I forgot Armia was a 2011 pick.
But this just reinforces my belief that this could have been done earlier. If the Atlanta Association weren't going to be the bus drivers when this team was going to be successful, why weren't one or two of them moved for more futures years ago? Adding to Hunter's point that he's made a few times, this move towards youth is fine but it's taken 2-3 years longer than it needed to.
I don't think this fanbase needed a "competitive for the playoffs" team during the honeymoon, we were thrilled to have the team back. But they need one now, judging by ticket demand at the moment.
Hard to believe, but I'm feeling pretty badly Wheeler and the rest of the millionaire vets. Even Stafford. There's no way they sold him on a two-year soft tank over the duration of the contract he signed, was there? Listen to the voices of these two over the past few weeks in their interviews. I also believe that there's a pretty decent chance that Ladd didn't re-sign here because he didn't want to be here for a another few years of rebuilding after watching quality vets walk last summer.
Last edited:
I can be convinced he's more than a mediocre-but-lucky GM. But, outside of drafting - where I give him full marks - he's shown some alarming weaknesses. If he hasn't done much of anything to address LD, or goaltending, or bottom 6 depth in 5 years, why should I expect him to now? I'm hopeful about Morrissey and Hellebuyck and the young players coming up, but nothing is certain.
The Pavelec and Stu situations over the next year will be interesting to watch. Someone said a few days ago it's weird how we virtually all agree that Pav and Stu suck and should be disposed of (humanely!) but we all assume that they'll play next year - and many are just fine with that. Huh.
I definitely understand what you are getting at. My response would be that it's only now that the young kids are.showing that they are ready to take and excel in key roles. I think Scheifele is the perfect example. He was the very first pick of Jets 2.0 and it's only this year that he's emerged as a true difference maker. Development takes time.
I do think Chevy could have done more to by moving some expiring contracts like Jokinen and Hainsy for more draft picks, but I think we needed to keep most of the core vets aroubd as place holders and role models.
cbcwpg
Registered User
I would add Thorburn to that list.... and no, I am NOT fine with it. I just accept the inevitability of it.
Well, it was the notion of Chevy's "inspired audible" that precipitated that bit about skeptics and believers. It just typifies the disconnect I have with a lot of pro-Chevy arguments.
I really think Chevy did, to some extent, stumble into the Buff re-signing and Ladd trade. I think the case was very strong that if you had to choose one of Ladd or Buff, Buff was the guy - a gigantic, all-star, game-changing, top pairing offensive-defenseman. So first of all, Chevy's lucky that Ladd refused to sign and that forced him into trying to sign the right guy. Chevy's also lucky that letting Buff sit on the backburner for 6 months didn't alienate him. He's lucky Buff wanted to be here and signed for a discount. He's lucky the team performed so poorly there wasn't even a faint hope of the playoffs at the deadline, freeing him up to trade Ladd.
I can't look at that series of fortunate events and conclude there's some genius at work here.
I'm certainly not basing my opinions on Chevy solely on the team's performance in the standings this year (although it's not helping his case). I'm not ignoring the promise of the prospect pool. But to say "we've got a good set of prospects and are better off than when the Thrashers got here" doesn't mean the team is about to turn the corner and become a perennial contender. To suggest otherwise would require a huge leap of faith...and a skeptic should try to keep those to a minimum.
The topic if fine. Heated debate is fine. Disagreement is fine, and encouraged, as it should (but usually doesn't) get people thinking about their own positions on things.
Labeling posters and taking ad hominem shots at each other is definitely not fine.
In any event, in an attempt to get it back on track, here are my thoughts on what would make me change my C to C+ grade for Chevy and his cohorts:
- Re-signing Ladd. I think they backed into NOT signing him, and TBH, I'm happy for that. I did not want him for 6x6 - it wasn't so much the AAV, but rather the term.
- If they had let Buff walk or traded him, I'd have been upset. The "down" period we're in now would have been much longer without him in place.
- If we mess up the Scheif and Trouba signings, I'll be miffed.
- If we continue to trot out Pav next year instead of putting Helle in his proper place, I'll be angry. Hell, I'd much rather they buy out Pav and run with Helle and Hutch next year, but I've resigned myself to that not happening.
scelaton
Registered User
- Jul 5, 2012
- 3,654
- 5,596
Luck + luck + luck + luck = Chevy's inspired audible!
Here's the difference between skeptics and believers: Skeptics will change their minds when presented with compelling evidence. Believers will twist themselves into pretzels to keep the faith. Salvation is always around the corner - some open-ended future date when we'll all be in paradise. Meanwhile, just justify, excuse, hand-wave, and minimize any inconvenient truths, claim the good outweighs the bad, and wait. If not this year, next year. If not next year, the year after. If not the year after, the year after that...
I tried to make the point that a number of factors, including luck, conspired to allow Chevy to make a very good call. He deserves credit for that.
Your response was that it was luck...period.Then the invocation of skepticism vs belief, as if this were a discussion about religion, with Chevy the demigod....or genius.
Very balanced
My main point, however, directed at the OP, was that it is pointless to try to change "doubters" entrenched negative positions in this losing environment. That much is abundantly clear to me, so I will leave it at that.
Luck + luck + luck + luck = Chevy's inspired audible!
[mod]
Here's the difference between skeptics and believers: Skeptics will change their minds when presented with compelling evidence. Believers will twist themselves into pretzels to keep the faith. Salvation is always around the corner - some open-ended future date when we'll all be in paradise. Meanwhile, just justify, excuse, hand-wave, and minimize any inconvenient truths, claim the good outweighs the bad, and wait. If not this year, next year. If not next year, the year after. If not the year after, the year after that...
It has nothing to do with your definition of "faith". It relates to what evidence you think is meaningful.
I have presented evidence again and again as to why I think the Jets are generally on the right track. It's just that the "skeptics" appear to be looking for a different kind of evidence (I guess, an annual playoff finish). If you don't believe that the Jets have accumulated a very good prospect pool, then you are rejecting something that others take as evidence. The fact that analysts and commentators that have no connection to the Jets also agree with that assessment suggests that it's not just wishful thinking.
In any case, the more effective way to reject that sort of assessment would be to provide evidence that the Jets prospects are not better than other teams'. Or, you could say that an upper end prospect pool shouldn't be considered a success. Or, you could say that you can't assess any prospects until they are achieving something in the NHL (so much for the draft, or the rather correct assessment about prospects like Ehlers, Trouba, Larkin, Eichel, etc.).
This ongoing assertion that only the "skeptics" are objective is tiresome, and more subjective than some are willing to admit.
Puckatron 3000
Glitchy Prototype
There is some truth here, so I get where you're coming from.
Chevy did however delay on these signings. He didn't fold to Ladd's contract demands. When many around here were posting nostalgic stories of Ladd helping build the new Jets. Urging Chevy to just "get it done". You may not have been part of that. But at that time, the majority of public opinion was to sign Ladd.
He used this time, much to the dismay of many, to make a better, more informed decision. To evaluate where the youth is and what it needs going forward. Ultimately resulting in signing Buff to a good contract, a decision we all mostly agree with. But "we" did not for a long time previous. This time also allowed Chevy to get a stronger return on Ladd than we likely would have gotten earlier in the season.
That sounds to me like smart, patient management. Maybe with some good fortune mixed in.
But to say "we've got a good set of prospects and are better off than when the Thrashers got here" doesn't mean the team is about to turn the corner and become a perennial contender. To suggest otherwise would require a huge leap of faith...and a skeptic should try to keep those to a minimum.
At some point the leap of faith becomes a step of logic. But we can disagree whether we're there yet.
pucka lucka
Registered User
There is some truth here, so I get where you're coming from.
Chevy did however delay on these signings. He didn't fold to Ladd's contract demands. When many around here were posting nostalgic stories of Ladd helping build the new Jets. Urging Chevy to just "get it done". You may not have been part of that. But at that time, the majority of public opinion was to sign Ladd.
He used this time, much to the dismay of many, to make a better, more informed decision. To evaluate where the youth is and what it needs going forward. Ultimately resulting in signing Buff to a good contract, a decision we all mostly agree with. But "we" did not for a long time previous. This time also allowed Chevy to get a stronger return on Ladd than we likely would have gotten earlier in the season.
That sounds to me like smart, patient management. Maybe with some good fortune mixed in.
At some point the leap of faith becomes a step of logic. But we can disagree whether we're there yet.
A leap of faith only becomes logic by luck and coincidence.
Puckatron 3000
Glitchy Prototype
Well, it would have been a leap of faith to guess the Peg would get a team back in 2001. Less so in 2011.
My point is that as time goes on, we will have a clearer view of Chevy's youth movement. That's when faith turns to logic. I think there is enough evidence already to expect good things. Others do not which is fine. That's what we're debating.
pucka lucka
Registered User
Well, it would have been a leap of faith to guess the Peg would get a team back in 2001. Less so in 2011.
My point is that as time goes on, we will have a clearer view of Chevy's youth movement. That's when faith turns to logic. I think there is enough evidence already to expect good things. Others do not which is fine. That's what we're debating.
That's not how it works. Faith is belief without evidence. It is completely illogical.
Puckatron 3000
Glitchy Prototype
That is only one definition of faith. Another equally common definition is: Faith is confidence or trust in a person or thing.
Some good points made in today's discussion, but IMO the concept of luck carries little or no weight in the discussion. It is unfair to say good outcomes were lucky while bad outcomes were incompetence. This carries no more weight than saying good outcomes were skill and bad outcomes were unlucky. Especially when these determinations are made on small slivers of information with various degrees of credibility.
Evidence? Alright.
Zero playoff wins in 5 seasons. 1 appearance.
Worse record today than 5 years ago.
Your move.
I think this is a very good starting point. Strong evidence that the core group inherited from Atlanta were no where near the quality necessary to contend. So time was wasted and any efforts to prop them up merely cost resources needed for the future. So would an early and decisive dismantling of the older core be your starting point?
Hold on a second, we're going to attribute all 5 years to the old Atlanta GM?
Just want to be sure we're all at the same starting point here.
edit: by that I mean, you are saying that 5 years and no playoffs indicates that our core wasn't strong enough. I disagree. I think the core was enough to work with had ancillary pieces been addressed.
To answer your question I think blowing it up year 1 or 2 made not a lot of sense when 1) you had to evaluate what you had with a new gm and 2) the top pieces on this team were/are pretty decent. You simply had to add better depth, the easiest part of a team to build.
I would have supported a rebuild and blowning things up after year 2, no doubt.
No, I disagree those pieces are enough because you still have slugs like peluso thor stuart chiarot and company all playing too often and too many minutes. On top of that you have Pavelec, one of the worst starting goaltenders in the NHL for 7 years now
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm just saying if your core group puts you in that position doesn't some of it lie with the core group? Added to the core group in 5 years is MP, Stafford, Myers, Scheif, Trouba, Ehlers and a handful of other 1/2 dozen or so decent pieces. Isn't that enough to support a core of a contender? The big boys could be strong playoff teams with nothing more than than waiver wire pickups to support their top 6 F and top 4 D.
Puckatron 3000
Glitchy Prototype
You're right of course. But the debate has evolved past this I believe.
To be a contender now, we would have had to sacrifice much of our promising future that we now have today. Is that what you'd prefer?
Or maybe you'd prefer we did a full rebuild. Then we'd have 0 playoff appearances and a worse record.
The only other option is Chevy's approach. That's it.
Options:
1. Sacrifice future to invest in Atlanta core.
2. Complete rebuild.
3. Mix of old core and new.
Obviously you disagree with 3 (Chevy's plan). You must also disagree with 2, since by your criteria it would be even worse. So 1. is all that is left.
Please correct me where I am wrong. Or if I'm not, then I am more than willing to illustrate why that would have been a disaster far worse than anything you're complaining about now.
IMO this is taking easy cheap shots. No one disagrees those are borderline players. Okay you believe the core is good enough. But I assume you at least agree it is below the likes of the Kings and Hawks and the other big boys. So you would need to add some pretty big pieces to contend. What should Chevy's plan have been? Keeping in mind we are at the top of virtually every players NMC.
Puckatron 3000
Glitchy Prototype
I think you added this while I was typing my last response. So if you supported a rebuild, you support the team getting worse to invest in the future right?
Great! Because that's what is happening. I'm glad we move beyond today's record and talk about the future.
If you disagree over the strength of the Jets future let's discuss it.
You're right of course. But the debate has evolved past this I believe.
The debate can never evolve past evidence
You're presenting a false choice. The top pieces were there, we only had to add good supporting pieces and a league average goaltender. To suggest you have to sacrifice your future to add a good 3rd line and get an average goaltender is wildly exaggerating.
As far as full rebuild goes... 0 playoffs wins is the same as 0 playoff appearances in my books. You'd really trade 2 years of faster rebuilding to be swept by Anaheim??
Also suggesting the only other option being Chevys is ludicrous to the point of insult. It's been explored over and over the mistakes he made at the bottom of the roster for F and D and goaltending that sunk this team over, and over , and over again.
This is such an oversimplification. I supported a rebuild in year 2 or 3. We're end of year 5. Rebuilding now means Chevys first 5 years are an unmitigated failure. Further, the assertion about the Jets having strong future is Oiler and Leafs talk. There's no evidence to support it; only hearse and conjecture. Will our youth become stars? Are we on track to be a contender? Who knows. It's guesswork. Which is why results and wins matter.
- Status
