Thorner

I certainly think the Hellebuyck contract makes a ton of sense in that context. Especially because the Jets, given their market, aren’t a team that I believe thinks they can risk LT rebuilds, definitely not lightly, but maybe not...at all? Maybe one per GM? But they’ve only had one GM. These extensions represent doubling down again on their OG core from 12 years ago. It’s somewhat frightening and somewhat.. exceptionally respectable. make no mistake, this is their “we want guys who want to be here”, see, look at these long term guys doubling down to stay. For Chevy a triumphant “SEE, Wheeler was wolf in the hen house, and he’s gone now.” Sticking point for me is is my anti-Scheifele bias. Whereas I believe Hellebuyck to be probably elite, I’m not convinced Scheifele is good

Hellebuyck contract is ok, that Scheifele contract to a 30+ skater is kinda yikes. Might end up balancing out the steal they had with his first several years under contact. His defence isn’t bad, so much as it’s atrocious. My eye test where Scheifele is concerned is of course bountiful but there’s also this

Not worried, just interested. Some house cleaning, for my part, on Ullmark before we can hopefully leave that in the past because Levi demands it so: Adams failure re ullmark, to this point, was two fold: A) failing to sign him B) not having an adequate backup plan after making that choice The key point I’d raise in this context is that an asset being overpaid as determined by *market value* isn’t the same thing as an asset being overpaid by true value, ie, value to one specific team. Just because the market may have said that we’d have to slightly “overpay” to keep Linus, doesn’t mean it’s an *actual* overpay re: value to our team. The goal of a successful team of course supersedes the evaluation of any one move by way of market in a vacuum. Particularly, particularly, if there is no viable backup plan, failing option A. What good is coming out “right” by the market and declining on Ullmark, if the detriment for failing to do so to your actual team is a greater negative? That’s winning battle and losing the war. That’s prioritizing a desire to never “lose” a single move in a vacuum, over the net result. It’s an imbalance of priorities. In short, KA didn’t have to pay Linus, but paying him was certainly the lesser of two evils IF the other option was failing to adequately address the position. That’s not hindsight: If KA *knew* the goaltending output would be significantly dented he made the incorrect choice, and if he didn’t, “well, I thought I could adequately replace him” isn’t an argument at all if you don’t actually do it. Every GM *thinks* they are making the correct decisions by the prism of the moment - unfortunately for them they get evaluated based on what actually happens. Merely the output Ullmark provided in Buffalo, not what he’d go on to do in Boston, represented a significantly higher degree of aptitude from what we’ve seen since at the position (again, at least until Levi) By the same token, it won’t matter that at the time we were all disappointed in our rostered backup goalies if UPL or Comrie emerge to provide adequate backup output this season - Adams would be due proper credit for the result he achieved.

This would be an insane amount of games on tv for us schwing!

By popular demand, this will be my last post cheers

I like it but I think I need Dahlin leading in ES minutes, one way or another

It was easier for me to live with considering we already went through Dahlin finishing 3rd during his, more remarkable, rookie season. A big take away for me re: ice time is how clearly Dahlin cements his case as our MVP. He’s playing 7 minutes more a game than Tage, 39% (!) more. Dahlin is also the better playmaker. He’s the best on our team and he makes passes most nhlers don’t or can’t. I always associate playmaking in a big way with vision, so whether or not vision gets lumped in with IQ I guess determines who id say has the better IQ. At least, “offensive awareness”, to borrow an EA NHL category

Other than the fact that I’ve said continuously that I think there’s a very reasonable chance our goaltending works out fine this season. Which is a stance I believe you share? Like I said, you want to paint some sort of disagreement on the extremes and it’s just not there. They actually do intersect quite a bit, that was my original point. I apparently can not convince you of this intersection so I can subscribe to your opening sentence

Right ok. I always think of Samuelsson stapled to Dahlin’s hip but I guess that wasn’t always the case

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