Thorner

That’s interesting because the difference is the post of mine that you chose to quote, that didn’t even quote you, posed 3 open-ended questions for discussion, and listed zero definitive stances. You decided to quote it and in so doing take another opportunity to use it as part of your framing that “folks think there will be catastrophe, but me, me, I think it’s going to be ok”. You keep framing your argument against a stance that doesn’t exist: not only that, you are inventing a radical stance and contrasting to it, which only further radicalizes one’s position. This is when I’m saying - it’s not so much you keep reiterating the same stance it’s that you aren’t well interpreting the ones you say you keep reading. If you are going to call out my post in the process of doing so, I’m going to notice and tell you you’re arguing against a wall “if it bothers you, ignore it”. My man, you quoted me to TELL me your stance again, I don’t have a problem that you feel the way you do about there not being upgrades. You are missing the point that no one has an issue with your stance on it, it’s not that uncommon, you aren’t on an island. No one is afraid of reckoning with the actual stance you take, it’s just made nearly impossible by the improv-Esque block you put on the convo by immediately pigeonholing it Hank literally follows me around and issues eye rolls to the majority of my posts without ever actually quoting them so I don’t really know what your point is there

Love this, including Clague because it’s exactly the point where the usual suspects are gone and the usage/talent discrepancies get more all over the place. Heavy usage on our top 4, heavy on our top *5* forwards. Those were Granato’s go to’s. Notably, Quinn isn’t there. The idea we can fill his spot internally obviously makes sense if all we feel it necessary to do is replicate what he did last year, this in a sense, Quinn Krebs Peterka were 4th liners, by ice time. For forwards they ranked 10-12. Of course, that’s including special teams

We must have had a way more balanced 6 man unit by ice time that year. Because if both second pair but Power 2.5 mins more I imagine our 3rd pair was getting very limited this year. Which makes sense given composition

So for the full year Dahlin was 3rd? Second pair? What was Power, 3rd as well, 2nd pair? I definitely had Dahlin on pair 1 in my recollection so thanks for the correction on that Power still obviously had the benefit of playing behind a better player, but maybe that doesn’t matter much if those added minutes are reasonably difficult ones. I’m not sure what his competition was like, neither how much of the more difficult matchups were lumped on Dahlin his rookie year because he was arguably already our best D man edit again - checking, Power was 2ND in ice time this year for D. It’s interesting as a dynamic cause he WAS second pair, right? But he had more time than Samuelsson. Pp2? yes, I see 8 pp assists for OP and zero pp points for Sammy so that’s prob the difference there. Already last season details are slipping my mind

@Hank that’s 25 “eye rolls”, you owe me one actual post. Do YOU have a link to many posters saying goalie is an impending catastrophe?

I would have more less approached things the same as KA, except I’d have brought in a more confidence-indusing backup to split time with and aid our golden goose Levi, and I’d have replaced the output being pencilled in for Quinn through an outside addition. So it’s a case of agreeing with his adherence to plan on everything but GT, and simply wishing HE adhered to his OWN likely projection for Quinn’s spot. Arguing for something different re: Girgensons is a losing battle considering his tenure, he will be skating on this team as long as he wants to, as long as KA is GM. Same for KO: it’s their call not KAs. To your point, Jost does seem to be a case of going with the bare minimum to fill out the roster, presumably his time here gave him the edge over anyone “new”, but in the event where I replaced Quinn, the Jost thing is probably just something I’d live with summary - - I had one major contention with the plan (goalie approach) - and one major contention with the approach to addressing a hole that arose in said plan the only area of the roster I found was being approached in a questionable way was goalie: the approach at F before Quinn made sense to me, and I retain No Notes on the D. I think it looks great and the additions more than enough to account for the inevitable injury to MS, or whoever goes down

Ya. So what! Great convo - - - You’ve stated your stance truly ad nauseam, I understand you aren’t concerned with additions to the F unit and G - this is why I didn’t quote your post, I didn’t need you to yet again reiterate your belief to me that those additions won’t come. Yes, I know you don’t think they will come and don’t want them - I promise you I will not forget this. Ever Do you have a link or a post you can quote that indicates who thinks failing to upgrade the GT will be an impending catastrophe? Who is taking that position that you are arguing against? Actually asking Many HERE you say believe it WILL be an impending catastrophe. Please quote the many, or even a few

I agree. Yes we can help goaltending by improving team D but we can also improve team D by...improving goaltending. Expecting the F to pick up the slack isn’t free improvement because we don’t want to pay for a goalie. It will stretch the roster nonetheless and open up a hole. We want to shell game Quinn and shell game our goaltending deficiencies but the other viable option is still the GM..ya know, making a transaction. I know this is a wild suggestion. Again, it’s not that we can’t shore up, and get required D results that way. (Just checking, didn’t Tage’s offensive pace slow down considerably as season went on? Was that just injury and fatigue, or was there a renewed commitment to team D across the lineup?). But yes, we can shore up the D that way. But also, better goaltending aids on that front without having to shy away from as many goals for as you may have during the shore up process. Ie - we may get to keep our #3 offence if we gave them Levi and a reliable 2 Seems to be framed as an either or position but I’ve never seen the issue with improving team D a bit AND improving the actual roster

It’s interesting because the frequent refrain is that we don’t need to supplement the forwards, or even replace Quinn, because we score so much, but it’s also being stated we don’t need a goalie because team D will simply cover it. Which is it? Doesn’t shifting away from a system that so prioritized goals (both ways) and high event hockey mean we can’t assume defensive improvement without suffering on offense? Are we sure, then, that Quinn’s injury remains in a state of not needing to be addressed?

No doubt the board will be absolutely filled with see I told you so’s but really, if anyone is paying attention, no one is actually doubting Levi its ok to believe in your goalie and still think it’s a needlessly risky bet to not address the other goalie position (and in so doing also grant your rookie a safety net.) Adams wants to free climb this cliff face, I get it. But I’m not praising him even more so for doing it without a wire, just because. Even once he pulls off the feat. My assessment of the needless risk won’t change, that’s simply the way risk works.

Difference being Rookie Power got to slide into the mactchups left for him behind all star Rasmus Dahiin. Rasmus Dahlin year 1 was sheltered by..the ghost of Dahlin future So in comparing rookie seasons Dahlin was - significantly better offensively - slightly better defensively - a full 1.5 years younger than Power (to my mind the craziest indicator) - adjusting to a full season on NA ice - on a significantly inferior team (Power’s output may only have been slightly aided defensively by this but certainly offensively, which was already far apart in comparison

Relative negativity - - - Anyways, the bolded bit is the crux of it

No, I mean in the very post you just quoted I stated I think he’s a good player. I say what I think. He’s accurately paid, too. Good contract. He’s certainly a 4 million dollar player, yes. What’s Dahlin going to get, about 10? Seems about right, to me. And that’s pretty much my central point because that sort of split flies in the face of the common breakdown you see between the two. You often see more of a closer, even up to 50/50, “they make each other better” stance. Accounts on Twitter you’d usually call reasonably balanced suggesting Samuelsson might be our MVP. Or the best defensive defenceman in the world. Obviously not pinning you on those stances specifically but the “allows” verbiage certainly hinted at it and that’s what I was addressing. It’s always the one, singular data point in his favour brought up, the difference in record while he was out: which, if you read what I wrote, I didn’t call a coincidence at all. It just happens to have an Occam’s razor, obvious explanation. Samuelsson isn’t bad, his numbers suggest he was decent (and he’ll get better). But his supposed greatness is relative: I’m not denying there was a great swing in performance, team wise, with him out. But again, relative: Samuelsson’s very decent (but just decent) output *is* a chasm away from the replacement level player we iced in his stead- and the effect it had on the d unit as a whole. Samuelsson’s great value lied in the fact he represented a scarce asset last year: that of a competent nhl defender. Value found in the rarity. And it’s why Adams more moderate D additions this summer should he enough! Because when Samuelsson or the next guy *inevitably* goes down with an injury, Clifton and Johnson are good enough to fill in, being a chasm away from Bryson, themselves. Think about it: If the record without Samuelsson was *truly* reflective, replacing him would be a much bigger problem went he inevitably goes down, given his style of game. The additions Adams made IMO supports my analysis of Samuelsson and my analysis of Samuelsson supports my view that Adams did a good job addressing D this offseason

Oh, make no mistake, I hope they never win another game

Ya there’s been quite a swell here in favour of a full rebuild in recent years. They are still on their original core in some ways: though most are now gone. Not sure it’s ever in the cards given size of market, and it’s tough to account for issues of vocal minority/wider, casual fanbase but the sentiment from Sabrespace-equivalent Jets fans is definitely REBUILD

Fans here want a rebuild. They’d be most upset sitting on the asset

Maybe we’re just TOO good at drafting

What’s the difference?

Kinda, but also kinda another attempt at the shell game. the net is STILL much closer to Quinn to Rousek/Olofsson. Because it’s not just the gap from your 9th best F being replaced by 13: you have to add in the small differences between 5/6/7/8 in shuffling around. Even if small. Because that’s where you are attempting to launder value mysteriously in getting it to: “see! It’s just 9th spot to 13!” I explained this yesterday: *IF* there is truly no gap of note between 5/6/7/8/9, it comes to the same thing because if player 9 is negligibly different to player 5, you are still replacing a #5 like talent with #13 when you sub in 13 for 9. You are correct though in that any minutes we can simply lump onto, say, Peterka instead, as straight added ice time, represents a smaller downgrade for that portion of minutes

We aren’t set at forward. We are maybe, maybe, set at forward goals. The forwards on the team were a big part of the reason we gave up so many goals and finished 20th place. I’d look to goal differential for a more accurate reflection. Removing Quinn’s 200 foot capability and subbing in VO’s lack of such and his combination of goals, the one thing we don’t need, is a sure fire way to make a weakness worse. it’s not so much the idea that wanting that adequately replaced by something with a little more certainty than a rookie or Olofsson is debated, it’s like you are scoffing at it

Why is Quinn the 12th forward? And again, 20th place. I know you want to keep expectations as small as it’s possible to keep them but it’s actually ok to make our team...more likely to make the playoffs for the first time in 13 years!

I’m sure they can capably fill in on at least a 20th place roster. I have no idea why we are seeking to replicate that but yes there’s a good chance a rookie can play a similar role to the one Quinn did during the course of a season during which he was rookie 2nd line winger on a 20th place team We finished 20th place. Sorry just wanted to be sure that got in there

Yes I don’t dislike VO I’m just very bullish on Quinn That’s what’s informing my commentary

He can’t just think we’re “close”, because if we are “close” it has to basically be 1 point because we just did that and he wouldn’t be envisioning he set up a roster primed to step back. So, he must not think we are only a bubble team or how could he NOT prioritize the replacement/points? I would disagree with the stance thoroughly in that case. It leads me to believe he thinks we have a bit of a cushion, which while I’m not sure I agree with, I can much easier reconcile his belief and optimism than some sort of nonchalant attitude towards getting over the hump

Pretty in line with what Liger was expressing then: it’s a loss, probably not one we need to worry about replacing, as the few points it might represent aren’t worth prioritizing If it’s indeed Adams’ thinking (and it appears it is), he must be very confident we’re a playoff team