Speculation: Will we see Peluso on waivers?

[Holden Caulfield]

Zinger said that Raffl is exempt because this is his first NHL contract.

It's an oversimplification of the process but it would work for the average joe. He is exempt for this year and this year only.

 

[Whileee]

It's an oversimplification of the process but it would work for the average joe. He is exempt for this year and this year only.

Yup. Players on their first contract over the age of 25 are exempt for one year only.

 

[Blue Shakehead]

...apparently your [mod] perspective doesn't preclude the inclination to incorporate argumentum ad hominem into the discourse. It's a somewhat ironic juxtaposition.

Its not the first time you've used italicized Latin phrases incorrectly in an exchange with me but I would never say "because you don't understand Latin, your opinions on the Jets are invalid". That would be argumentum ad hominem. Dusting off Latin phrases to sound learned but then using them incorrectly is the textbook definition of literary irony.

When debating two fundamentally opposing perspectives (i.e., one camp that criticizes Chevy vs. one that defends him) it's not an ad hominem to say that you are in the camp that defends him. Using examples of your historical and continued defense of him is not an attack, it is the entire proposition. Interpreting that as ad hominem is actually ab absurdo and one doesn't need to be a 13th century priest to know what that means.

Maurice isn't a "scapegoat", he's a key part of the organization that has been given a role in player evaluation and decision-making. If you want to ignore his role in assigning value and roles to players like Thorburn, Stuart and Peluso and blame it all on Chevy, that's okay, but it's a bit odd to then pretend that's a non-partisan position to take. Beyond the fact that Maurice fills out the line-up card every game and found a way to play Peluso and Thorbs plenty last year, and has glued Stuart to prized young Trouba, there is plenty of evidence that Maurice was asked to play a big role in evaluating players on the team when he was brought in.

"[Maurice as] someone with a lot of experience will be valuable for us as we continue to evaluate what we have here and what changes in the future might be necessary," Cheveldayoff said.

Its one thing to say that Maurice's advice is sought or valued in decision making. Its quite another to suggest that he (and not Chevy) is responsible for Thorburn, Stuart and Peluso's contracts, which is the precise claim you've made on multiple occasions.

Maurice may have said "I'd like to keep Thorburn, Stuart and Peluso around" but there is no evidence that he did. And even if he did, there would be nothing stopping Chevy from saying "Thanks for your advice Paul but I've been watching this team for 3.5 years and those players are hot garbage, so no I'm not going to sign them."

These are the known facts: Thorburn, Stuart and Peluso's contracts were extended (mistake #1) for way too much money (#2) and too much term (#3). Providing a generic quote about how Maurice will be involved in player evaluations is not proof that Maurice is wholly or even partially responsible for extending those specific contracts, nor does it absolve Chevy. And even if you had proof that extending those players was entirely Maurice's doing (which you don't) you'd still need to explain away mistakes #2 and #3.

 

[Gnova]

I voted no but my heart says "Dear God please!"

 

[Gnova]

Peluso going to another team would be good for Peluso. He has potential.

Yes he has a real chance to improve a team's chances of a playoff spot.







The Jets chance will improve if he moves to another central division team.

 

[Whileee]

Its not the first time you've used italicized Latin phrases incorrectly in an exchange with me but I would never say "because you don't understand Latin, your opinions on the Jets are invalid". That would be argumentum ad hominem. Dusting off Latin phrases to sound learned but then using them incorrectly is the textbook definition of literary irony.

When debating two fundamentally opposing perspectives (i.e., one camp that criticizes Chevy vs. one that defends him) it's not an ad hominem to say that you are in the camp that defends him. Using examples of your historical and continued defense of him is not an attack, it is the entire proposition. Interpreting that as ad hominem is actually ab absurdo and one doesn't need to be a 13th century priest to know what that means.

Its one thing to say that Maurice's advice is sought or valued in decision making. Its quite another to suggest that he (and not Chevy) is responsible for Thorburn, Stuart and Peluso's contracts, which is the precise claim you've made on multiple occasions.

Maurice may have said "I'd like to keep Thorburn, Stuart and Peluso around" but there is no evidence that he did. And even if he did, there would be nothing stopping Chevy from saying "Thanks for your advice Paul but I've been watching this team for 3.5 years and those players are hot garbage, so no I'm not going to sign them."

These are the known facts: Thorburn, Stuart and Peluso's contracts were extended (mistake #1) for way too much money (#2) and too much term (#3). Providing a generic quote about how Maurice will be involved in player evaluations is not proof that Maurice is wholly or even partially responsible for extending those specific contracts, nor does it absolve Chevy. And even if you had proof that extending those players was entirely Maurice's doing (which you don't) you'd still need to explain away mistakes #2 and #3.

I know perfectly well what ad hominem means, and feel its justified in describing some of your approach to our discourse. You have tried to invalidate my arguments by suggesting that I am an uncritical acolyte of Chevy. I support much of the direction that Chevy has taken, and I think I have put forward rational reasons for that. I am also fine with criticizing Chevy when I think he's made mistakes (Wright, hanging onto Noel, Jokinen, Setoguchi are good examples). You can disagree with my arguments, but I find it objectionable when you suggest that I am incapable of making rational arguments because of some uncritical emotional attachment to Chevy. It's no different than if I responded to your opinions by accusing you of being an irrational "Chevy hater".

Arbitrarily dividing people into pro and anti-Chevy "camps" makes it impossible to discuss specific issues and decisions rationally.

Now, related to the substance of the discussion, my argument is not that it was a good management decision to give contracts to Thorbs, Peluso and Stuart, but rather that both Chevy and Maurice should share the blame. I think Maurice deserves some criticism for the Jets hanging on too long to the notion that you need these unskilled "character" players. In Maurice, Chevy found a kindred spirit. If Maurice didn't support that notion, I wouldn't be grinding my teeth every time he puts Stuart and Harrison on the ice, or puts Thorburn on the second line, or dresses Peluso and Thorburn together. I think they both have a blind spot in this regard. If you want to pin all of the blame on Chevy and refuse to see any blemishes with Maurice's approach, that's fine (maybe you belong to a "pro Maurice camp" ). I think Maurice is a good coach - light years better than Noel. But he does have his flaws. I think wanting Peluso on the roster for a bit of muscle is one of Maurice's flaws.

 

[KingBogo]

I know perfectly well what ad hominem means, and feel its justified in describing some of your approach to our discourse. You have tried to invalidate my arguments by suggesting that I am an uncritical acolyte of Chevy. I support much of the direction that Chevy has taken, and I think I have put forward rational reasons for that. I am also fine with criticizing Chevy when I think he's made mistakes (Wright, hanging onto Noel, Jokinen, Setoguchi are good examples). You can disagree with my arguments, but I find it objectionable when you suggest that I am incapable of making rational arguments because of some uncritical emotional attachment to Chevy. It's no different than if I responded to your opinions by accusing you of being an irrational "Chevy hater".

Arbitrarily dividing people into pro and anti-Chevy "camps" makes it impossible to discuss specific issues and decisions rationally.

Now, related to the substance of the discussion, my argument is not that it was a good management decision to give contracts to Thorbs, Peluso and Stuart, but rather that both Chevy and Maurice should share the blame. I think Maurice deserves some criticism for the Jets hanging on too long to the notion that you need these unskilled "character" players. In Maurice, Chevy found a kindred spirit. If Maurice didn't support that notion, I wouldn't be grinding my teeth every time he puts Stuart and Harrison on the ice, or puts Thorburn on the second line, or dresses Peluso and Thorburn together. I think they both have a blind spot in this regard. If you want to pin all of the blame on Chevy and refuse to see any blemishes with Maurice's approach, that's fine (maybe you belong to a "pro Maurice camp" ). I think Maurice is a good coach - light years better than Noel. But he does have his flaws. I think wanting Peluso on the roster for a bit of muscle is one of Maurice's flaws.

While I would generally support your position, I don't buy into the belief Stuart and Thorburn were some type of big mistake. I will agree both probably got more term and money than ideal, but neither contract handcuffs the organization. Despite the less than complimentary comments by many, Thorburn is a legitimate 4th liner and Stuart is a legitimate bottom pairing defensman. If you look around the league there are similar and even worse players with horrible contracts that actually hamper team's ability to compete. Both Chevy and Maurice are old school, patient and loyal, but that is the type of leadership that True North has sought out. It will forever drive crazy those that believe player X should always replace player Y because this measure of ability is incrementally better over a long enough sample period. IMO True North doesn't operate that way. From what I see they will place certain worth on what we might refer to as intangibles and add that to their measurements of players. The organization gravitates towards low key family guys who compete and sacrifice and are loyal back. This is the atmosphere they want guys like Petan and Ehlers to walk into. For their part they go out of the way to draft players they judge to have the character to fit nicely when they arrive.

My guess while Chevy is grinding out a contract with Ladd this is in the backdrop and is fostering good will in a difficult process. I also see a Buff deal getting done that we will all find surprisingly team friendly.

Getting back to Peluso, IMO Chevy and Maurice have found their line in the sand where they may have made one step too far. But the impact is small and they partly corrected with getting Raffl to sign and can play that 13th forward role. But they will remain loyal and Peluso will be treated with respect and he will play that head puncher role when called upon.

People can bash Chevy and Maurice all they want, but I appreciate the leadership and vision they both offer. And True North for realizing it takes time to put the structure in place for long term success, rather than chase meaningless small gains that would eat away at the foundation. Because when you step back and focus on the big picture we are miles ahead of where we were 4 years ago with a tremendously bright future compared to when we were entering into year 1 of the Jets 2.0 era. And that didn't happen by accident.

 

[Whileee]

While I would generally support your position, I don't buy into the belief Stuart and Thorburn were some type of big mistake. I will agree both probably got more term and money than ideal, but neither contract handcuffs the organization. Despite the less than complimentary comments by many, Thorburn is a legitimate 4th liner and Stuart is a legitimate bottom pairing defensman. If you look around the league there are similar and even worse players with horrible contracts that actually hamper team's ability to compete. Both Chevy and Maurice are old school, patient and loyal, but that is the type of leadership that True North has sought out. It will forever drive crazy those that believe player X should always replace player Y because this measure of ability is incrementally better over a long enough sample period. IMO True North doesn't operate that way. From what I see they will place certain worth on what we might refer to as intangibles and add that to their measurements of players. The organization gravitates towards low key family guys who compete and sacrifice and are loyal back. This is the atmosphere they want guys like Petan and Ehlers to walk into. For their part they go out of the way to draft players they judge to have the character to fit nicely when they arrive.

My guess while Chevy is grinding out a contract with Ladd this is in the backdrop and is fostering good will in a difficult process. I also see a Buff deal getting done that we will all find surprisingly team friendly.

Getting back to Peluso, IMO Chevy and Maurice have found their line in the sand where they may have made one step too far. But the impact is small and they partly corrected with getting Raffl to sign and can play that 13th forward role. But they will remain loyal and Peluso will be treated with respect and he will play that head puncher role when called upon.

People can bash Chevy and Maurice all they want, but I appreciate the leadership and vision they both offer. And True North for realizing it takes time to put the structure in place for long term success, rather than chase meaningless small gains that would eat away at the foundation. Because when you step back and focus on the big picture we are miles ahead of where we were 4 years ago with a tremendously bright future compared to when we were entering into year 1 of the Jets 2.0 era. And that didn't happen by accident.

Been drinking Chevy's Koolaid, eh KB?

I'm not a fan of Stuart as a player. I think he seems like a terrific man and teammate, though. In a limited NHL role he can be fine and fit in well with a good team.

I think Thorbs has been overvalued by the Jets in terms of role. His contract is perhaps a bit rich and long as a consequence. But as you say, it's not going to really affect the Jets long-term future in a negative way. Clearly, the organization feels that his off-ice demeanour and role is part of his value to the organization. There are many ways in which he's better than someone like Kassian as a team's big bottom-6 winger, that's for sure.

 

[Jetfaninflorida]

My guess while Chevy is grinding out a contract with Ladd this is in the backdrop and is fostering good will in a difficult process. I also see a Buff deal getting done that we will all find surprisingly team friendly.

The bolded is a bold prediction. Sorry for using the word 'bold' twice together like that, but you know what I mean.

I am hoping you are right while believing that you are way wrong.