Discussion in 'Winnipeg Jets' started by Guerzy, Nov 7, 2013.
A change for the sake of making a change has always been, and will continue to be, a terrible idea.
Look if Chevy can pull off a good deal I am all for that. Nobody is untouchable. But I just strongly disagree with the title or your thread.
By no means do I intend for any changes to be simply for the sake of change, that indeed would be foolish.
As I said at the beginning, I have long been optimistic, patient, etc.. and I am all for long-term, consistent competitiveness. But I am at a point now where I have collectively formed my opinions and I believe some changes need to occur to give this core a chance on getting on the right road.
Which leads me to... sometimes, you gotta make some changes. Not just "for the sake of making changes".
My question is...how is sticking with what isn't working any better then "change for the sake of change" ...it's essentially "faith for the sake of faith"...
Because if you make a change for the sake of making a change, you're admitting that you have no idea what's going on and are just trusting to luck that the move you make will work out.
Chevy can (and probably is) working the phones. But there are very few trading partners out there early in the season - nobody has decided if they are buyers or sellers yet. To make a trade now you probably have to significantly overpay.
If Chevy wants to shake up the roster, it's much better to do at the deadline, and even better to do in the offseason.
while i agree with the deadline...offseason? I don't get thee offseason point.
Again i'm hung up on this because i feel we're at a watershed moment with this organization. either its gonna break one way and we'll be a playofff team now (and hopefully continually) or its gonna break the other way and we should not be focusing around a younger group.
We're trending away from the first option, a change would have to be made if we Want to break that way.
If we decide we are, and are ok with, breaking the second way, then we should be aligning our resources to support it. Eitherway i feel inaction is not an optimum use of resources.
Do we have to overpay? What about the team we're trading with? Wouldn't they have to overpay? There are 2 sides to every trade and we are not the only team that has had a disappointing start. Some are probably more desperate than we are. Especially eastern teams who are closer to the playoff line with a worse record than the Jets. Just look how desperate the Islanders seemed in the Vanek trade.
My point was simply that if you want to trade, say Wheeler, you'll have a lot more trading partners during the offseason. Teams aren't as constrained by the salary cap, they can afford to make bigger moves.
I disagree about the "watershed moment" talk. There's nothing special about November 2013 with this team. Our core is young enough management could continue to just build around LLW+Kane, if they wanted to. If we need a coaching change, no reason we couldn't make that change in the offseason and come back with a near-identical roster.
You have to take a long-term view...
Great article MattG, it is 100% spot on and the similarities are scary same between the clubs. When you mentioned about this in other threads, I thought you are were crazy and we were a second tier team while the Blues were Stanley Cup contenders and similarities were zero. But after reading your article there are sooo many similarities but you forgot one big differences and that Winnipeg is in Canada and the owners of this franchise, don't really need to make any moves because they continue to make money and will do so, while in St. Louis if the Blues aren't winning no one gives a ****. And the big trade that the Blues made, they had to make that move because they had to do something to become Stanley Cup contenders, in order to make a move like that, you needs brains, courage and guts, which I don't think no one on this team has(they might have the brains but not courage or guts).
He's not even talking about trading one player and when, the article looks at the big picture. And that trade can come when ever(does not have to be the offseason).
Trade market isn't going to heat up until close to the deadline with so many teams right at the cap. Best chance to make the right moves will be in the off-season. We're stuck with what we have for now.
Your not following... I agree completely. Which is what i meant by a watershed moment.
Blake wheeler, andrew ladd, dustin byfuglien, and (likley) toby enstrom are worth significantly less to this organization (and to any team) in three years then they are right now.
That's what I meant. The only way they benefit this team long term is if they help create a winning culture/attractive destination/identity to this team Now.
they haven't done that yet. That's my point. It's got to go one way or the other. Either A) we're committed to helping build that idea and we need to do something to get them going/winning or B) we should be moving them for long term assets.
Not all of them at the same time obviously. But the process one way or the other has to start. I don't understand how anyone can be against that?
Good article. If you're looking for a blueprint on how to get the Jets from point A (where they are now) to point B (a playoff team) and later C (cup contender), I think the Blues are a perfect model.
I believe that a major change or two will be coming to the core, most likely in the form of trading Byfuglien. However, it likely won't be until the deadline this season (if the Jets are in sell mode) or the offseason. I'm also a firm believer that Ondrej Pavelec, barring some completely unforeseen resurgence, will be bought out this summer with a new goalie will be brought in.
Many have opined that Claude Noel will be given the duration of the 2013-14 season before any decision is made on his future. My question to that is: why? Can you give me an NHL coach that a) didn't have a playoff berth on his resume and b) was given three full seasons to turn it around? You can say "it's not the coach, it's the player" and "a coaching change wouldn't turn this team around", but the fact is that Claude Noel, by every single precedent that has been set in the NHL, is past his expiry date.
To me, letting him go wouldn't qualify as a bold change. It was somewhat expected when Payne Davis was let go, and it should be expected with Claude.
I think you've taken an example where it ended up turning out wonderfully for "Team Shakeup" and working backwards. The Flyers were a step short of winning the Stanley Cup in 2010 and decided to shake things up: In comes Brzygalov, Simmonds, Voracek / Out go Carter and Richards. How's that working out?
Well he hasn't had "three full seasons" to turn it around, has he.
The reasoning is this - it's hard enough to attract top talent to Winnipeg. You don't want to be known as a place that is hard on coaches, where you can be fired at a moment's notice. You want to be known as a good place to work.
Not, nor did I ever say it is going to work, I just said that I think it's a possibility if we want to compare the state of the Jets to a similar organization/team that has turned the corner in the last couple seasons, St. Louis looks pretty comparable from many angles.
I am also not saying a trade will magically fix us. Nor am I saying firing Noel and hiring someone else will magically fix us. I could very well be incorrect here. But i'd love to find out because what we are doing right now isn't working, to me, that is beyond evident.
This is the name of the game in the NHL; when things aren't working with a team and organization, they make changes. The Jets will too, at some point, I believe. As Hank said, it may be this season, a month from now, at the trade deadline or in the offseason. But I believe we will see some changes and I believe it will be in the form if a big trade (Byfuglien) and the firing of Noel.
The odd thing is Claude Noel is a bit of a Ken Hitchcock disciple. They try to play a similar game to the Blues they are just not as successful at it yet.
I think an idea might be to move Buff to the east for a young superstar. Could you trade Buff for Drouin? Maybe the Islanders for Strome or Reinhart?
The problem is those are trades for tomorrow not today. I don't think they make us better now.
If retained until the end of 2013-14, which many seem to think is a foregone conclusion, yes he will have.
I guess you missed the point of my post. Claude Noel has already been given a longer shelf-life than normal by NHL standards. If retained until the end of the season, he will have been given the job security that was afforded to Jacques Martin in Florida (10 prior playoff berths) and Ron Wilson in Toronto (8 prior playoff berths).
There is absolutely zero logic behind the notion that firing Noel at this stage is being "hard on coaches".
Mostly, i'm haring the same arguments against change that we heard in the first two seasons.
You know what? Had they happened in the first two season they would have been completely valid. Firing noel would have been rash. Trading players would have been hastey.
But i firmly believ that time is over. I don't think a core that's failed together for 3+ years has ever "righted the ship" simply by having draft picks come in and support them.
I could be wrong, but i can't think of an example.
It's not year 1 or 2 anymore. Changes are no longer hasty.
The definition of insanity, is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
I at least give credit to St. Louis for, at the time, recognizing what wasn't working and making organizational moves in attempt to correct things.
The good news for them, is it worked out. Will it ever for us? who knows, but I am at a point where I am open to finding out.
Since he's been named coach, he's had the same two seasons and the same 38 days into season 3 as every other coach has had.
Byfuglien doesn't have that much value. A lazy D who hasn't figured out how to play the position while utilizing his talent in any consistent manner for $5.25 million. We'd have to fleece someone to get a frontline player.
I don't think there is any rush yet to make a move at least from a financial standpoint. They are going to sell the building out for awhile and just because your hardcore fanbase is unruly doesn't mean they will make any tough decisions.
I have a feeling if anything at the end of the year they might give him his walking papers and maybe make some moves at the draft.
I just don't think that is realistic either saying he has no value. He does produce offense which is important to win. He doesn't have the right partner and I am sure they are Orgs that think "Hey we could use a 50 point D man with size when we go into Boston etc.." He is the type of player that is extremely valuable because there are very few players with his skill set.
Separate names with a comma.