Evaluate Chevy - Part III (mod warning post #104, #122)

[Mortimer Snerd]

Man, GMs of all teams make similar mistakes, are we supposed to burn them all at the stake constantly. If Hutch wins the job then yea I'll give Chevy credit for finding a good young goalie cheaply. That doesn't mean he's absolved from the Pavelic contract, but he wouldn't be absolved from it had he bought him out and was paying him a bunch of money to sit at home either. Bringing in goalies like Hutch is a recipe other teams have tried to success. Columbus made a similar mistake in signing Mason to a garbage deal, they solved it by brininging in a young unproven Bobrovski, who eventually stole the job and it lead to Mason being dumped.

Not totally absolved but I, for one would have credited him with recognizing the mistake and taking FIRM action to limit the damage. It would have been at that point where we should, IMO have said 'all GMs make mistakes, lets move on'.

 

[Joe Hallenback]

Going with Monty as a 60 game starter would probably draw some criticism around the league.

Then again the same could be said about leaving Pavs in the same spot.

The reality is that we dont actually know how Monty would do with a 60 game workload. But we do know how the other guy handles it.

I would be in favor of an even split in workload between goalies at this point. We dont have one that should play that much.

I don't think anyone is against that idea. I actually think its better to let Monty go and give that workload to Hutch.

I am going to make some assumptions here

1. They know its a bad contract
2. TNSE says no buyouts
3. They tried to move him and got no offers
4. He is on a short leash this year
5. If its the same old same old, they either try to move him again or finally buy him out next year and take the cap hit.
6. If he improves finally, he gets another year and so forth

That is whole lot of assumptions on my part. But my opinion is that is what they are currently working under.

 

[Howard Chuck]

I sometimes wonder if that magic number is financial in nature - i.e. TNSE needs to repay the shareholder loan that Thomson gave them to purchase and relocate the Thrashers...

I know we're throwing around speculation, but do you mean, not spend money on the team until they pay off the loan?

 

[cbcwpg]

Not totally absolved but I, for one would have credited him with recognizing the mistake and taking FIRM action to limit the damage. It would have been at that point where we should, IMO have said 'all GMs make mistakes, lets move on'.

There were 28 - 2013 buyouts. Other than those that think Chevy was the only GM to act correctly by not using a buyout, it appears that the other GMs can accept that their franchises made a mistake and steps were taken to correct the problem. The NHL historically isn't always very open to giving you a "get out of jail free" card, but when you get one, you should seriously think about using it.

 

[tbcwpg]

I think it is pretty bizarre to think a guy who's longest season is 31 games and had a stellar 893 save percentage is the answer.

I get the idea of buying out Pavelec and say signing Jonas Hillier because he has been a starter who has put numbers. But going with Montoya is the answer?

You think my logic is bizarre? Bizarre.

The problem with the ABP (Anyone But Pavelec) line of thinking is that it makes goalies like Montoya seem great by comparison. On their own, they aren't great. We talk about how Pavelec has proven he's not starter quality in the NHL. Fair enough. Then the topic turns to Montoya would've been cheaper and better - ignoring that Montoya has proven he is not starter quality either. He's been good in a backup role but hasn't proven himself as a starter in the league. Also, in the Washington back-to-back from the lockout year that has been referenced, in the second game of it Pavelec was pulled after 25 minutes, and Montoya let in 3 of his own.

There are valid points on both sides of the arguments made by Jet and BoJangelz. Paying Pavelec to do nothing seems to be a waste of money, and not making the playoffs doesn't really COST the Jets any money, it just doesn't make them any additional revenue. Those are not the same thing. A goaltending upgrade is required, and buying out Pavelec can also be considered the cost you pay for fixing your mistake.

Anyway, I don't think the Pavelec situation will be the ultimate arbiter of determining Chevy's legacy. Perhaps it's some master plan to get draft picks like Trouba and Ehlers?

 

[YWGinYYZ]

Look: I'm actually a very happy-go-lucky guy, but if one more person discusses another poster instead of debating the POINTS in that posters posts, you may get a temporary forum ban, and not just a thread ban. How many warnings do we have to put in the thread?

Critique the posts, NOT the posters. Period.

Site rules:

Flaming: Do not post any messages that harass, insult (name calling), belittle, threaten or mock other members. Debates are fine, but critique the opinion, not the person. Personal attacks are not permitted. Do not call other posters trolls. Do not use sweeping generalizations and plural pronouns to cloak personal attacks. For example if a poster(s) states that he thinks 'x' is a good idea, replying that "Anyone who supports 'x' is an idiot" is a personal attack. Do not start threads to call out and embarrass other members; or make posts about ignore lists.

Labeling people as a "Chevy Hater" or a "Chevy Apologist" is not furthering the discussion either, and will be considered off-topic, as it's discussing the poster and not the post.

At the end of the day, no matter which end of the spectrum you stand on, we're all Jets fans here, and want the best for the team. Please remember that, and treat each other with respect.

And with that said, carry on.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

I agree that Pavs has been a big mistake on Chevy's part, but I don't find the argument that the only rational solution is to buy him particularly strong. I fully understand the sentiment that "anyone would be better than Pavs", but the list of goalies that the Jets could have acquired cheaply in a trade or free agency (i.e. $1.5 million) this season that one could confidently predict as being competent enough to assume full-time starting duties is short (like "nil").

If the Jets discover that Pavs is still terrible and Hutchinson or Hellebuyck won't be able to carry the #1 goaltending role, then they'll need to come up with a more radical solution to the goaltending situation. From my perspective, whatever they do they should minimize the cost in terms of assets (players or draft picks) until they are sure that they don't have a home-grown solution. In the meantime I'm not that bothered that they decide not to bring in yet another unproven back-up through free agency. I'm not pining for Greiss or Montoya (who might well revert to his .893 save percentage in the only season of more than 30 starts).

Of course Monty COULD revert to .893 but it is hard to make an argument that it is likely. It is easier to make the argument that Pavs is likely to perform at that level. You talk as though Monty has never in his life played a full season as a starter so he is a confirmed backup. You choose his concussion season as a possibility to give weight to. If you wish to downgrade him as a solution it might make more sense to suggest he revert from last years excellent play to his career average of .910.

I agree that there is good reason to doubt that Monty would be a real long term solution (although he MIGHT be just that) but there is also good reason to believe that he would outperform Pavelec for the next 2-3 years until we find someone who WILL be a longer term solution.

I think you overstate your case when you say the list is "("like nil")" but you do make a case for waiting for the home grown solution instead of going for the buyout. I think that case relies entirely on the uncertainty of replacing him after the buyout AND also depends on the near term success of Hutchinson (or Hellebuyck). That said I concede that it is at least a valid option. I still don't think it is the BEST way to have done it. The other mitigating factor is that for as long as it continues to fail we get enhanced draft position.

When considered from that POV we might conclude that the difference between the 2 is not really all that great but to conclude that I still think we have to rely on Hutchinson succeeding THIS year.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

How many of us have the disturbing little inkling in the back of our minds, that Chevy (and TNSE) never had plans to get higher in the standings (and lower in the draft) until we reach a certain level of organizational talent (whatever that number may be).

Sometimes this is the only thing that makes sense to me. Keeping Pavs because you "don't believe in giving up on a player" is actually giving up on the entire team. When you recognize that your weakest link is your goaltender (and they MUST see that), then if you don't do something about it for the better of the team, you may have ulterior motives.

YMMV

That thought has crossed my mind. I don't really believe that to be the case but the thought won't go away.

I can't buy the "don't believe in giving up on a player" explanation. I think Chevy still believes in Pavs enough to give it one more shot. That is not easy to accept either but it seems to me to be the least unlikely explanation.

 

[cbcwpg]

The problem with the ABP (Anyone But Pavelec) line of thinking is that it makes goalies like Montoya seem great by comparison. On their own, they aren't great. We talk about how Pavelec has proven he's not starter quality in the NHL. Fair enough. Then the topic turns to Montoya would've been cheaper and better - ignoring that Montoya has proven he is not starter quality either. He's been good in a backup role but hasn't proven himself as a starter in the league. Also, in the Washington back-to-back from the lockout year that has been referenced, in the second game of it Pavelec was pulled after 25 minutes, and Montoya let in 3 of his own.

There are valid points on both sides of the arguments made by Jet and BoJangelz. Paying Pavelec to do nothing seems to be a waste of money, and not making the playoffs doesn't really COST the Jets any money, it just doesn't make them any additional revenue. Those are not the same thing. A goaltending upgrade is required, and buying out Pavelec can also be considered the cost you pay for fixing your mistake.

Anyway, I don't think the Pavelec situation will be the ultimate arbiter of determining Chevy's legacy. Perhaps it's some master plan to get draft picks like Trouba and Ehlers?

I don't think Montoya was the answer either, but that was never my plan. I still think we could have picked up a more than adequate FA to play goal for the next 2-3 seasons while we develop in house.

If we somehow swing a 1st overall or 2nd overall pick next draft and playing Pavelec 65 games was the reason for us getting those picks.... all is forgiven with Chevy not buying out Pavs and I'll call him a genius.

 

[EpicGingy]

How can you support your statement about us making the playoffs? You can't

Its a purely speculative argument that can never be proven. I will say we could have made the playoffs had we moved Buff off of D sooner, pure speculative, and without any merit other than I think its true.

As I pointed out in a previous post, Mason and Montoya put up worse #'s than PAv when they were playing regular minutes, so your theory that Pavs is the problem loses traction with actual results of replacement goalies, playing under the same umbrella as Pavs.

Goalie save % has factors that effect it that are outside of just the goalies skillset. Lets stop acting as though this is all on PAvs, and start realizing there is a team in front of him that effects it heavily as well. Different goalies, same results. Proven

It's been proven on this board before that at this level of hockey the team in front has a minimal impact on the goalies numbers. Good goalies do well on bad teams, bad goalies do bad on good teams.

You could cherrypick a few goals and individual games where yes, Pavelec was let down by his team, or when he did keep us in the game. But those sample sizes are too small to be admissable in any sort of legitimate discussion on his entire skill. For every goal that was the fault of a player, you'll find more where it was directly Pavelec's fault due to his terrible positioning, rebound control, and a lack of puck tracking ability.

Pavelec would do minimally better on a great team like LA. The Leafs have a far worse defensive core than us but Bernier still managed to drag them far closer to a playoff spot than they should've been.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

I sometimes wonder if that magic number is financial in nature - i.e. TNSE needs to repay the shareholder loan that Thomson gave them to purchase and relocate the Thrashers...

Easier to do that by getting 2+ playoff home games per year.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

I never said lose money, but it hardly saves money. And Montoya at his cost would not alleviate the same issues in net, and in front of it. Its just appears more palatable to some based of a cheaper contract for similar results, when in fact, the cost of the results is exactly the same.

Pavs is not my mandate or marching beatf for supporting Chevy. I am aware of many other positives brought to this organization than the Pavs contract.

Its the Chevy naysayers that want to inject any conversation about Chevy, into a debate about Pavs. That is their sole argument, one that has grown tiring of listening to.

I like the goaltenders that exist in our system and believe the future is very bright for us in net, all based off of Chevy drafting. Lets talk about that, or is it just not as self serving as going over the Pavs contract for the 100th time?

And if that is the culture Chevy and company want to instill, that when they make a decision to invest into a player, that they wont give up on that player a quarter of the way through, well hats off to them. THat rubs off on others, and it breeds loyalty.

Where did I say cost saving goal? Try reading my post again before you attack.

I notice that the Chevy naysayers love to circle their wagons around Pavs, pretty much nonstop.

1st off, I am not a Pavs supporter, but I am not ignorant in believing he is the sole problem on this team. I am also not blinded with Pavs hate, that I ignore all the solid things our GM has done over the past 4 years. It’s getting tiring listening to the same regurgitated argument, Pavs this and that.

With that said, you can spin anyway you want, but it does not erase the fact that you are spending money on erasing a player from your roster, which means you are paying for services not rendered. It’s an erased asset, regardless of his save %.

If you hired a painter to paint your house, then realized you didn’t t like the quality of worka quarter of the way in, and agreed to pay him for 66% of his agreed price to let him walk, did you not just spend $$ to have someone walk away from a job? Did you not just pay a cost?

66% is still a cost, a cost for what? NOTHING

And then what?

Find another painters at 36% of the initial cost, and hope his skillset is not only on par with the higher priced painter, but he exceeds that painter in skill and services, as though it magically exists, a cheaper painter with better skills. Seems like a solid pipe dream, but it fits your argument

Your 1.5 mill goalie replacement solution holds as much weight as me suggesting that Pavs will improve his save % this season, give some value back on the contract, and then make it a moveable contract in years 4 and 5 of it.

Both just hypothetical suggestions to support our arguments, neither can be backed up. I actually would put more faith into Pavs improving this season to allow his contract to be palatable, than replacing him with a cheap goalie solution that will magically transition us into a playoff contender.


And further to this, spare me this Pavs crap as though he is the sole reason this team fails to make the playoffs. I have watched pretty much every game since the inception, and if you are paying attention, you can easily see that there are more holes than just goaltending. So go ahead and grab your 1.5 mill goalie, guaranteed, end of next season, same posters, same rants, just a different goalie name. And betcha they will be grinding Chevy for the buyout that didn’t fix our problems. Revisionists are always right.


And if Button is not your cup of team, how about the entire TSN panel that picked the Jets as the sole Canadian team they would take over if they had their choice, based on the direction our team is going? Bob McKenzie is a hack to for liking what he sees Chevy doing over here? Some of the best minds in the media like what they are seeing here, because they aren’t impatient fans fixated on a goalie, they see the entire picture.

Take a look sometime, its kinda rosey.

Post #772 in this thread:
"So your little money saving plan in fact is a heavy cost to the club in paying out a contract for a player that will not be providing any services, along with having to ink a new contract to his replacement. Please stop acting as though that does not affect the organization, a small market organization, heavily and spare me on how this saves the team money, IT DOES NOT SAVE ANY MONEY, it costs money."

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

I can't think of any GM in their right mind that would hand over the goaltending duties to Al Montoya

Can you think of one who would hand over the duties to Ondrej Pavelec? That is clearly and demonstrably worse. The only conclussion I can draw from that statement is that you suspect Chevy is not in his "right mind". In that case I disagree. I question his handling of the goaltending but not his sanity.

 

[Whileee]

There were 28 - 2013 buyouts. Other than those that think Chevy was the only GM to act correctly by not using a buyout, it appears that the other GMs can accept that their franchises made a mistake and steps were taken to correct the problem. The NHL historically isn't always very open to giving you a "get out of jail free" card, but when you get one, you should seriously think about using it.

13 teams have not yet used a single buy-out. I invite folks to take a look at the list of teams and players. (http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=675349) It is relevant that Chevy has not had any cap concerns that would force him to use a buy-out as yet, either. Suggesting that Chevy is alone in this regard is pretty far from reality.

Of course Monty COULD revert to .893 but it is hard to make an argument that it is likely. It is easier to make the argument that Pavs is likely to perform at that level. You talk as though Monty has never in his life played a full season as a starter so he is a confirmed backup. You choose his concussion season as a possibility to give weight to. If you wish to downgrade him as a solution it might make more sense to suggest he revert from last years excellent play to his career average of .910.

I agree that there is good reason to doubt that Monty would be a real long term solution (although he MIGHT be just that) but there is also good reason to believe that he would outperform Pavelec for the next 2-3 years until we find someone who WILL be a longer term solution.

I think you overstate your case when you say the list is "("like nil")" but you do make a case for waiting for the home grown solution instead of going for the buyout. I think that case relies entirely on the uncertainty of replacing him after the buyout AND also depends on the near term success of Hutchinson (or Hellebuyck). That said I concede that it is at least a valid option. I still don't think it is the BEST way to have done it. The other mitigating factor is that for as long as it continues to fail we get enhanced draft position.

When considered from that POV we might conclude that the difference between the 2 is not really all that great but to conclude that I still think we have to rely on Hutchinson succeeding THIS year.

Montoya has a career save percentage of .910 as a backup. The one season where he was got substantial usage (31 games) he had a save percentage of .893. I could see why Chevy and Maurice might not want to turn over the reins to Montoya. A lot of other GMs agreed - he signed for $1 million per to be a back-up.

 

[theamazingchris]

13 teams have not yet used a single buy-out. I invite folks to take a look at the list of teams and players. (http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=675349)Montoya has a career save percentage of .910 as a backup. The one season where he was got substantial usage (31 games) he had a save percentage of .893. I could see why Chevy and Maurice might not want to turn over the reins to Montoya. A lot of other GMs agreed - he signed for $1 million per to be a back-up.

For half of those games he was playing concussed. (Probably, at least he had one recently when he played the second half of the season.) I'm not saying he's the best goalie ever, but I do think his skill level as a starter could potentially be okay. Having said that, I agree that his best role is as a backup.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

I am not sure how factual speculation is Mortimer.

Buying out Pavelec. Speculation
Signing a goaltender on the cheap. Speculation

Not sure how any of that equates to facts

What if they bought out Pavelec and signed Ryan Miller to a 5 year 6 million dollar a year deal? Did they save money then?

The idea that they could buyout Pavelec and get a better goalie cheaper and win more games and get into the playoffs is all very speculative isn't it?

The cost of the buyout is in no way speculative. We know precisely what the numbers would have been. Signing a goaltender on the cheap is not speculative at all. We already had one. There is some speculation in saying that he would have been better but there are FACTS that support the speculation.

Miller was not the only option. It is NOT speculative to suggest that they could have bought out Pavs and got a better goaltender for less because there are plenty of better goaltenders getting less. They already had one of them and just threw him away. Is Montoya a better goaltender than Pavs? Yes. I might speculate about how much better. It is a bit speculative to say we would have made the playoffs the last 2 years without Pavs. There is a reasonably high probability that would have happened but since it didn't happen there can be no certainty that it would have.

 

[MrBoJangelz71]

The buyout does not absolve the organization from paying out the contract. That's why it is called a BUYout. It absolves them of paying out 1/3 of his contract. We ALL know that. 1/3 of his contract is more than enough to get a BETTER replacement. The remainder of a few 100k/yr is a saving. This has been discussed in great detail with FACTS not opinion. You say you have been reading this thread so you know that too. It is just arithmetic.

I did not say you can't get ANY players in later draft position nor did I say you can't get ANY players from the later rounds. The avg. is a little over 2 players per team per year from the draft. That means that it requires that many just to keep up with natural turnover. To improve a team you need to do better than that. As each player is taken in the draft the pool of remaining players becomes a little weaker. The odds of finding a GOOD player go down. If you scout better and pick better you can improve those odds but good scouting and picking does not make that pool any better. The BEST players are gone. You can only pick the best of what is left. If, by the time you get to your 3rd round pick there are NO good players left your good scouting won't get you a good player.

The 3 teams you used to Cherry pick a few examples of successful later picks ALL used more than just the draft to build their teams. The examples you chose, with 1 exception were no later than 72 OA, early/mid 3rd round. You really illustrate my point. In each round there are only so many good players available. With each round the number of those goes down SHARPLY. You get only 1 chance in each round. After the 2nd there just aren't that many left. That is not opinion, it is just arithmetic.

You said:"This takes time, and many fans that understand this game at a high level, understands what it takes to build a winner, understands that patience and time will be needed to build this properly." I agree. It takes time and patience but while we are being patient the right things have to be done. Some of them are and some of them are not.

In 5 years time Pavelec should be behind us so he will no longer be keeping us out of the playoffs. He MIGHT still be affecting the team though. There has been an OPINION expressed here that failing to upgrade the teams chances by getting rid of him has prevented Chevy from signing more GOOD players. It has also been speculate that it is contributing to a desire to leave on the part of other players who either want to be traded or will not resign with the Jets. Those are impossible to know for certain or to quantify the effects. OTOH keeping Pavelec has improved our draft position.

I can't recall seeing ANY post on these boards advocating trading picks and/or prospects for a quick fix. I have seen several advocating the opposite. That is trading established players FOR picks and prospects.

I'm not panicking, I'm not advocating throwing out the baby with the bath water but there are realities that are not being addressed. D&D may be the foundation of the plan but it cannot be the ENTIRE plan. There is NO reason why we still have Pavelec. The arithmetic is simple. You can choose to deny it but it is there. The arithmetic of drafting well and not adding any HIGH picks is there also. You can choose to deny that too if you like.

You are clearly CHOOSING to deny ALL of the arguments that have been presented in this thread so there is no point in discussing them with you any further.

1st off the only thing I am denying is that Chevy is a bad GM because of Pav’s contract and not buying it out. I am acknowledging that Chevy is doing a fantastic job of stalking our shelves with top young talent that will payoff for us in the near future.

2ndly, we do not know that 1/3 of Pavs contract nets us a better goalie, how in gods green earth would we know that? That is purely speculative.

Does that 1/3 contract to a different goalie come with a brand new team in front of said goalie? Does it stop the give aways that ended up in the back of the net? Does it prevent Toby from pinching in at a bad time and giving up odd man rushes?

No, no and no.

What we do know is that Montoya and Mason both put up similar, or below save % to Pavs, when playing regular games and minutes. That is factual. Yet we can state that another goalie at a similar cost miraculously puts up a better save % than Pavs, because it sounds right?

And I am growing tired of this save % argument as though it is a biblical stat that exonerates the team playing in front of the goalie of any fault over the end result. It’s a stat that has many factors outside of a goalie’s realm of control, that contribute to it. Lets stop denying this, and realize there is more to this than Pavs.

No one talks of Montoya’s 9 consecutive starts where he manages a .903 save %, or Mason’s below .900 save % when filling in for Pavs. Why when it hurts your lone cause of blaming Pavs for everything and chastising Chevy for sticking behind him and the contract.

And how does cherry picking CUP WINNERS, hurt my cause of illustrating how CUP WINNERS are built? Seems like the perfect example of choice. I could go over the Oilers draft picks, all high picks, and show you how your point of picking ahead of the rest automatically translates to success.

And when did these teams wheel and deal to become cup winners? They swung deals from a point of strength, when they had a pool of talent to draw from without leaving themselves empty. We are not there yet, in 2 years’ time maybe, but today its silly to think we could do some deal that immediately puts us over the hump. I get that Pavs is the easy target, and I am far and away saying he is our solution in net but there is far more to this than his save %

And sorry, the not buying out Pavs prevents us from netting top tier players, or retaining our own players is plain silly. See Wheeler, Ladd, Little, Bogo, Stuart ect….. Fact is it has not hurt us one bit.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

There were 28 - 2013 buyouts. Other than those that think Chevy was the only GM to act correctly by not using a buyout, it appears that the other GMs can accept that their franchises made a mistake and steps were taken to correct the problem. The NHL historically isn't always very open to giving you a "get out of jail free" card, but when you get one, you should seriously think about using it.

Absolutely!

 

[Whileee]

The cost of the buyout is in no way speculative. We know precisely what the numbers would have been. Signing a goaltender on the cheap is not speculative at all. We already had one. There is some speculation in saying that he would have been better but there are FACTS that support the speculation.

Miller was not the only option. It is NOT speculative to suggest that they could have bought out Pavs and got a better goaltender for less because there are plenty of better goaltenders getting less. They already had one of them and just threw him away. Is Montoya a better goaltender than Pavs? Yes. I might speculate about how much better. It is a bit speculative to say we would have made the playoffs the last 2 years without Pavs. There is a reasonably high probability that would have happened but since it didn't happen there can be no certainty that it would have.

I dislike Pavs' play as much as any fan, and probably have for longer than most.

However, I think that some of the proposed solutions rely on a lot of speculation.

There generally are not a lot of good options for signing a starting-calibre goalie on the cheap. Does it happen sometimes? Of course, but it's usually when a goalie is signed cheaply to be a back-up and unexpectedly emerges as a solid starter. It is always easy to make these sorts of prognostications in the rear-view mirror. For every cheap back-up that makes it as a starter, there are plenty that stay second-string or flop. We always seem to remember best the ones that we predicted correctly on though.

 

[Whileee]

Absolutely!

See my post above. There are plenty of GMs that haven't used a single compliance buy-out. Suggesting that Chevy is alone in this is just false.

 

[MrBoJangelz71]

See my post above. There are plenty of GMs that haven't used a single compliance buy-out. Suggesting that Chevy is alone in this is just false.

Absolutely!

 

[Blue Shakehead]

See my post above. There are plenty of GMs that haven't used a single compliance buy-out. Suggesting that Chevy is alone in this is just false.

Saying "they didn't either" is not really a defense unless the other 12 GMs had Pavelec signed for 3 more years. Maybe the other GMs that didn't use a buy out because they don't have a massive boat anchor of a contract with way too much term for way too much money tying up an extremely important position on their roster?

As for cap situation - there were plenty of teams that used buyouts that have plenty of cap space (NYI, PHX, BUFF, NJ) and presumably A LOT less net income than TNSE.

So there goes that theory too. Got anymore defenses that need to be thoroughly debunked?

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

The problem with the ABP (Anyone But Pavelec) line of thinking is that it makes goalies like Montoya seem great by comparison. On their own, they aren't great. We talk about how Pavelec has proven he's not starter quality in the NHL. Fair enough. Then the topic turns to Montoya would've been cheaper and better - ignoring that Montoya has proven he is not starter quality either. He's been good in a backup role but hasn't proven himself as a starter in the league. Also, in the Washington back-to-back from the lockout year that has been referenced, in the second game of it Pavelec was pulled after 25 minutes, and Montoya let in 3 of his own.

There are valid points on both sides of the arguments made by Jet and BoJangelz. Paying Pavelec to do nothing seems to be a waste of money, and not making the playoffs doesn't really COST the Jets any money, it just doesn't make them any additional revenue. Those are not the same thing. A goaltending upgrade is required, and buying out Pavelec can also be considered the cost you pay for fixing your mistake.

Anyway, I don't think the Pavelec situation will be the ultimate arbiter of determining Chevy's legacy. Perhaps it's some master plan to get draft picks like Trouba and Ehlers?

I disagree with the first bold. I agree with the second. They are quite different. I don't think anyone has suggested that Montoya is a LIKELY long term solution, only that he is better than Pavelec until a long term solution is found.

In the 3rd bold SEEMS is the key word. Yes it SEEMS wasteful but the fact is that money is already spent and we are not getting money's worth. Recovering any part of that reduces the waste.

In the 4th bold I think that is a misstatement of the facts. Opportunity lost is a LOSS.

The last bold I agree with. See comment above re:money already spent.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

The problem with the ABP (Anyone But Pavelec) line of thinking is that it makes goalies like Montoya seem great by comparison. On their own, they aren't great. We talk about how Pavelec has proven he's not starter quality in the NHL. Fair enough. Then the topic turns to Montoya would've been cheaper and better - ignoring that Montoya has proven he is not starter quality either. He's been good in a backup role but hasn't proven himself as a starter in the league. Also, in the Washington back-to-back from the lockout year that has been referenced, in the second game of it Pavelec was pulled after 25 minutes, and Montoya let in 3 of his own.

There are valid points on both sides of the arguments made by Jet and BoJangelz. Paying Pavelec to do nothing seems to be a waste of money, and not making the playoffs doesn't really COST the Jets any money, it just doesn't make them any additional revenue. Those are not the same thing. A goaltending upgrade is required, and buying out Pavelec can also be considered the cost you pay for fixing your mistake.

Anyway, I don't think the Pavelec situation will be the ultimate arbiter of determining Chevy's legacy. Perhaps it's some master plan to get draft picks like Trouba and Ehlers?

I disagree with the first bold. I agree with the second. They are quite different. I don't think anyone has suggested that Montoya is a LIKELY long term solution, only that he is better than Pavelec until a long term solution is found.

In the 3rd bold SEEMS is the key word. Yes it SEEMS wasteful but the fact is that money is already spent and we are not getting money's worth. Recovering any part of that reduces the waste.

In the 4th bold I think that is a misstatement of the facts. Opportunity lost is a LOSS.

The last bold I agree with. See comment above re:money already spent.

Edit:You are likely correct that Pavs won't be the ultimate arbiter of Chevy's performance. That will be the performance of the team in the standings. If it improves in spite of Pavelec it will be forgiven. I don't think it ever stops being a mistake but it fades in importance.

Oops! Sorry for the double post. I took the wrong path to an edit. Would a mod please remove the first one?

 

[SensibleGuy]

nobody has suggested chevy is the only GM who hasn't used a buy-out...why is there such a need to cast everything to the furthest end of the spectrum. None of us have stated that Pav can't possibly improve. None of us has said that Chevy hasn't done anything right. None of us has said we could FOR CERTAIN have gotten into the play-offs with better goaltending the past three seasons. Nothing about what we are talking about is that black or white.

As it stands, we're going to have to wait and see how it plays out. I hope for the sake of both Pavelec and Chevy that he does pull off a miracle (which would really just be an avg NHL season sadly) because if he doesn't I think things are going to get pretty unpleasant this year...