Interesting Info: Part XVII (Jackets-related "tidbits" here)

[Viqsi]

Could you not just say a different game where we had the lead then blew it and lost the game, allowed us to pick 3rd Bc if we hadn't we would have had more points?

See prior statement re: standards of evidence. Or, IOW, that doesn't support my point, so it doesn't count.

The problem is that folks were fixating on these sorts of games because to them they somehow had some sort of Higher Meaning w/r/t the lottery results and that we'd regret winning them or something. My real point here is that such things are entirely subjective, and that therefore kvetching about How Dare We Win That Game does no objective good whatsoever but does plenty of harm when the primary goal of this stuff is to be entertained.

So, no, I don't honestly believe that that comeback win was truly the clinching difference that got us into the top-3. But folks kept acting as though it and a few other games would be the clinching difference that would keep us from a high pick, and they got very angry about it to the point that they'd question your priorities and insist you were some sort of substandard fan for enjoying such a win. That I got those same accusations without anyone looking in the mirror when I repeatedly threw that right back in their faces (partly in an attempt at education, but admittedly mostly out of sheer frustration) is just bonus irony, really.

That, and...

Regardless what you think the lower you are in standings, the higher percentage of winning lottery/getting an elite player. That is why some people thought it was in the best interest of the club to lose.

Those chances were marginal, and probabilities do not work that way. As we (happily) got to find out.


And ultimately, I said I'd be even more of an insufferable ***** about it if we happened to win the lottery with those hated wins, and I really must insist on being true to my word. I wasn't going to bother, but now that folks are writing articles about those games and how They Could Have Changed Everything... well, it's a bit much to resist that.

 

[NotWendell]

There's merit to both sides on this one. People who pay big $ for tickets expect to see the home team go all out and try to win. There was also more benefit to the franchise long-term in dropping points than piling up points late in the season.

All I'm certain about is this - I'm gonna be pissed if we're having this same argument this time next year.

 

[Viqsi]

There's merit to both sides on this one. People who pay big $ for tickets expect to see the home team go all out and try to win. There was also more benefit to the franchise long-term in dropping points than piling up points late in the season.

Undoubtedly. My issue wasn't with losing games so much as folks cheering for it and wanting more of it and getting irate when it didn't happen.

All I'm certain about is this - I'm gonna be pissed if we're having this same argument this time next year.

Amen to that.

 

[pete goegan]

There's merit to both sides on this one. People who pay big $ for tickets expect to see the home team go all out and try to win. There was also more benefit to the franchise long-term in dropping points than piling up points late in the season.

All I'm certain about is this - I'm gonna be pissed if we're having this same argument this time next year.

Undoubtedly. My issue wasn't with losing games so much as folks cheering for it and wanting more of it and getting irate when it didn't happen.



Amen to that.

I agree with you both on all points.

 

[Johansen2Foligno]

There's merit to both sides on this one. People who pay big $ for tickets expect to see the home team go all out and try to win. There was also more benefit to the franchise long-term in dropping points than piling up points late in the season.

All I'm certain about is this - I'm gonna be pissed if we're having this same argument this time next year.

I have some bad news for you...

 

[NotWendell]

I have some bad news for you...

I know. I know.

 

[Tulipunaruusu*]

http://www.acmesports.com/current-clients/

Juolevi and Puljujärvi are both clients of ACME sports agency, Bill Zito's former office.

John Ramage, Markus Hännikäinen and Alex Broadhurst are also clients, Nutivaara of course too.

 

[JacketsDavid]

There's merit to both sides on this one. People who pay big $ for tickets expect to see the home team go all out and try to win. There was also more benefit to the franchise long-term in dropping points than piling up points late in the season.

All I'm certain about is this - I'm gonna be pissed if we're having this same argument this time next year.

A lot of teams rebuild and as long as the fans "understand" what they are doing most fan bases are fine. May not be happy with the team but they get it. You see it in all the sports - most teams realize "we're not very good, and we need some elite talent, and no elite free agent would ever come here as bad as we are - so the one option is building thru the draft/youth".

Teams like the CBJ on the other hand try every year to get better and win, yet they fail nearly every time. That is what fans hate - incompetence. And the CBJ are incompetent.

 

[major major]

A lot of teams rebuild and as long as the fans "understand" what they are doing most fan bases are fine. May not be happy with the team but they get it. You see it in all the sports - most teams realize "we're not very good, and we need some elite talent, and no elite free agent would ever come here as bad as we are - so the one option is building thru the draft/youth".

Teams like the CBJ on the other hand try every year to get better and win, yet they fail nearly every time. That is what fans hate - incompetence. And the CBJ are incompetent.

Apparently you missed the memo, but the bolded is in fact what the Jackets have been doing.

 

[JacketsDavid]

Apparently you missed the memo, but the bolded is in fact what the Jackets have been doing.

Yep I must have been dreaming as we picked up free agents (Horton is example of guy that has hurt us) to fill gaps and traded youth to get guys like Gabby and Richards.

We are a team that always thinks we are a player away from getting there and as long as we have cap room - we try it. A few off-seasons we haven't had that luxury and we stood pat, but nearly every off-season we trade youth for a more veteran player.

So sorry we must be reading different memos. I'm reading reality and the standings and you're reading what the Jackets tell you to read.

 

[Viqsi]

Yep I must have been dreaming as we picked up free agents (Horton is example of guy that has hurt us) to fill gaps and traded youth to get guys like Gabby and Richards.

We are a team that always thinks we are a player away from getting there and as long as we have cap room - we try it. A few off-seasons we haven't had that luxury and we stood pat, but nearly every off-season we trade youth for a more veteran player.

So sorry we must be reading different memos. I'm reading reality and the standings and you're reading what the Jackets tell you to read.

You realize, of course, that vets are necessary to insulate the youth that you're actually going to build with, right?

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

Yep I must have been dreaming as we picked up free agents (Horton is example of guy that has hurt us) to fill gaps and traded youth to get guys like Gabby and Richards.

We are a team that always thinks we are a player away from getting there and as long as we have cap room - we try it. A few off-seasons we haven't had that luxury and we stood pat, but nearly every off-season we trade youth for a more veteran player.

So sorry we must be reading different memos. I'm reading reality and the standings and you're reading what the Jackets tell you to read.

Literally the last time these things happened was in 2013. So I'd say you're reading history.

And who is "Richards"?

 

[DJA]

Now we're making up deals that never happened in order to bash the front office? Cool.

 

[major major]

Yep I must have been dreaming as we picked up free agents (Horton is example of guy that has hurt us) to fill gaps and traded youth to get guys like Gabby and Richards.

We are a team that always thinks we are a player away from getting there and as long as we have cap room - we try it. A few off-seasons we haven't had that luxury and we stood pat, but nearly every off-season we trade youth for a more veteran player.

So sorry we must be reading different memos. I'm reading reality and the standings and you're reading what the Jackets tell you to read.

It's true that not 100% of the moves have been focused on getting younger.
But given that they have remained one of the youngest teams, now close to the youngest team, it's fair to say that the net emphasis has been on youth.

You're confusing the matter by thinking that somehow the standings have some bearing on the matter. No one is debating the standings. You suggested that the Jackets are not focused on youth/draft/development and a simple look at the age of the team would correct that.

 

[JacketsDavid]

Virtually every off season the CBJ makes a splashy move (if they have any cap room, which they likely will not this year). A fantasy/roto type of move.
A team that is focused on youth waits to make those moves until the team/youngsters is ready to win. The CBJ continually tinkers, they won't wait for the youngsters. Let the kids learn to play and win then add the right veterans. We randomly add veterans thinking it will help (and let's be honest it hasn't).
I stand by that 100%.

 

[Viqsi]

Virtually every off season the CBJ makes a splashy move (if they have any cap room, which they likely will not this year). A fantasy/roto type of move.
A team that is focused on youth waits to make those moves until the team/youngsters is ready to win. The CBJ continually tinkers, they won't wait for the youngsters. Let the kids learn to play and win then add the right veterans. We randomly add veterans thinking it will help (and let's be honest it hasn't).
I stand by that 100%.

Again - you realize, of course, that vets are necessary to insulate the youth that you're actually going to build with, right? Otherwise, you're throwing them to the wolves (a.k.a. "the Edmonton model").

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

Virtually every off season the CBJ makes a splashy move (if they have any cap room, which they likely will not this year). A fantasy/roto type of move.
A team that is focused on youth waits to make those moves until the team/youngsters is ready to win. The CBJ continually tinkers, they won't wait for the youngsters. Let the kids learn to play and win then add the right veterans. We randomly add veterans thinking it will help (and let's be honest it hasn't).
I stand by that 100%.

You stand by changing your story? You stand by hedging your bets with terms like "virtually" and "nearly"? You stand by using three-year-old examples?

I'd like to know what the "splashy move" has been each of the past two offseasons. The one that, per your earlier post, "trade[d] youth for a more veteran player."

 

[blahblah]

Virtually every off season the CBJ makes a splashy move (if they have any cap room, which they likely will not this year). A fantasy/roto type of move.
A team that is focused on youth waits to make those moves until the team/youngsters is ready to win. The CBJ continually tinkers, they won't wait for the youngsters. Let the kids learn to play and win then add the right veterans. We randomly add veterans thinking it will help (and let's be honest it hasn't).
I stand by that 100%.

Yes, because our "splashy" move last offseason was to bring in a 22 year old. I'm trying to remember, but the only other "splashy" offseason move under this regime was Horton. No RJ for Hartnell wasn't "splashy", just smart.

I'm not quite seeing what you're selling.

 

[Viqsi]

Yes, because our "splashy" move last offseason was to bring in a 22 year old. I'm trying to remember, but the only other "splashy" offseason move under this regime was Horton. No RJ for Hartnell wasn't "splashy", just smart.

I'm not quite seeing what you're selling.

With regards to current regime "flashiness" (which is, frankly, a complaint of mine as well), there's four moves that come to mind as qualifying:
1) Marian Gaborik trade (to and from)
2) Nathan Horton signing (and the aftermath)
3) Brandon Saad trade
4) John Tortorella hiring

#1 was at the deadline (both times). #2 and #3 were the only offseason moves, and only #2 involved a vet (and the aftermath was near the deadline). #4 was midseason and has nothing to do with a roster pickup.

I've described this administration as "going for the headline-grabbing move" myself in the past, but this is a really, really poor way of presenting that argument.

 

[CBJx614]

The only problem i have with that is both guys that were brought in to be "that last piece" didnt even play anything close to a full season. So we truly dont know how things could have turned out.

As for Saad, i do that trade all day every and twice on Sundays.

And the Johansen trade only made us younger.

 

[JacketsDavid]

You stand by changing your story? You stand by hedging your bets with terms like "virtually" and "nearly"? You stand by using three-year-old examples?

I'd like to know what the "splashy move" has been each of the past two offseasons. The one that, per your earlier post, "trade[d] youth for a more veteran player."

The Coach hiring.

As I noted if they have $$$ they make moves. Right now they are so buried in bad, long-term contracts that they are locked in.

Also keep in mind they traded RJ for Hartnell. Good trade for stats (but hasn't helped the team win) but if we just held RJ he would be gone, instead we have a guy who produces but as we saw at the deadline no one wants him and with his contract it may force us to buy him out or lose a young asset. I wouldn't characterize RJ as young but they traded a bad contract for a worse one.

Edit: RJ has one more year left (2016-17), but less than Hartnell.

 

[Viqsi]

The Coach hiring.

As I noted if they have $$$ they make moves. Right now they are so buried in bad, long-term contracts that they are locked in.

Also keep in mind they traded RJ for Hartnell. Good trade for stats (but hasn't helped the team win) but if we just held RJ he would be gone, instead we have a guy who produces but as we saw at the deadline no one wants him and with his contract it may force us to buy him out or lose a young asset. I wouldn't characterize RJ as young but they traded a bad contract for a worse one.

Edit: RJ has one more year left (2016-17), but less than Hartnell.

The coach hiring was not an offseason move. You were ranting about offseason moves.

And the Hartnell trade was good for more than just "stats".

I'm annoyed with Kekalainen too, but for G-d's sake can we at least try to stick to coherence and reality?

 

[Samkow]

Close to 1,000

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

The Coach hiring.

As I noted if they have $$$ they make moves. Right now they are so buried in bad, long-term contracts that they are locked in.

Also keep in mind they traded RJ for Hartnell. Good trade for stats (but hasn't helped the team win) but if we just held RJ he would be gone, instead we have a guy who produces but as we saw at the deadline no one wants him and with his contract it may force us to buy him out or lose a young asset. I wouldn't characterize RJ as young but they traded a bad contract for a worse one.

Edit: RJ has one more year left (2016-17), but less than Hartnell.

The coach hiring was not in the offseason. And you're being disingenuous if you're implying that's the kind of thing you were talking about when you entered this discussion and harped on the lack of building through the draft/youth/adding veteran players (they're on this page - but I can quote them again if you like). Of course, you seem comfortable with moving the goalposts.

If RJ for Hartnell is the best example of trading youth for vets and adding random vets in an attempt to win now in the past three years, well, I think you're smart enough to know that's not the strongest evidence.

You're right about the contract business, but none of the difficult contracts were acquired for younger talent in an attempt to win now. Shall I continue to wait for you to provide actual evidence in support of your original points, or are you prepared to admit that you are clinging to opinions that are outdated by three years?