|
Post by lenny on Jul 28, 2014 21:35:31 GMT -6
Also again he was an RFA, the Jets literally held all the chips in that negotiation. There was absolutely no need, rhyme, or reason to signed him for that much for that long. Held all the chips? Who did the Jets have that they could sign, move up, or trade for to replace Pavelec, with no prospects and a first round pick that resulted in Trouba. Please enlighten me and all the readers as to what Chevy's options were. He just told you what could have been done. Don't you read. Draft picks as an example for existing goalies. Like Jets 2012 2nd round pick. It was wasted on Lukas Sutter anyway,lol.
|
|
|
Post by chemicalxv on Jul 28, 2014 22:33:17 GMT -6
Also again he was an RFA, the Jets literally held all the chips in that negotiation. There was absolutely no need, rhyme, or reason to signed him for that much for that long. Held all the chips? Who did the Jets have that they could sign, move up, or trade for to replace Pavelec, with no prospects and a first round pick that resulted in Trouba. Please enlighten me and all the readers as to what Chevy's options were. Don't you find it a bit odd that you continually defend Chevy in regards to things like this and no one backs you up? I gave you the list of goalies that have been available over the last 3 offseasons (which you clearly ignored, as some of it extended back to the 2012 offseaon) that the Jets could have gotten at a much cheaper cost with less term, that would have produced better results that Pavelec. The Jets even had a chance to move on from that awful contract (let alone never agree to it) multiple times. Never did. You keep harping on losing the pick that resulted in Trouba. Why? None of the goalies that I listed that were traded recently involved anything close to a first-round pick. The Jets held the chips because a) Pavelec had been a mediocre/below-average goalie to that point in his career and had regressed sharply from his career-high the previous season (which was barely above league average as it was) b) His previous 2-year contract was $1.15M per season. c) He was an RFA. His options were literally go to arbitration, play under the tender, or not play in the NHL that year (either completely sit out or go play in Europe). The Jets ended up increasing his yearly AAV by 223% and increased his term by 150% after he posted a .906 save %. No result of arbitration would have given him the amount he ended up with, and likely not the term as well (considering Pavelec would qualify for UFA after this season were his contract to run out). Want to know how absurd that number is? It's literally a bigger percent increase in salary than Carey Price got from his second contract to his third. The Canadiens gave him a 136% increase. Rask's third contract (which to be fair was only one year) was a 180% increase over his second. It was a bigger increase than Lundqvist got from his second to his third (62%). And if you're going to say "But he was the clear starter, the Jets had no one else!" again, why were the Blackhawks able to sign Crawford to $2.67M for 3 years when they were in the exact same situation? And Christ what about the highway robbery Nashville got with Rinne for 3 years? Literally signed him to a $725k, 1-year contract after he posted a .917 in 52 games, or that his next contract was $3.4M, 2-years when at that point not only was he one of the best goaltenders in the league but he was a free agent when they signed him to those contracts! The Jets got taken for a ride. Possibly the only worse contract they've given out is Jim Slater's new one, and maybe Bogosian's if he never actually develops.
|
|
|
Post by Grumpz on Jul 29, 2014 8:59:07 GMT -6
Held all the chips? Who did the Jets have that they could sign, move up, or trade for to replace Pavelec, with no prospects and a first round pick that resulted in Trouba. Please enlighten me and all the readers as to what Chevy's options were. Don't you find it a bit odd that you continually defend Chevy in regards to things like this and no one backs you up? I gave you the list of goalies that have been available over the last 3 offseasons (which you clearly ignored, as some of it extended back to the 2012 offseaon) that the Jets could have gotten at a much cheaper cost with less term, that would have produced better results that Pavelec. The Jets even had a chance to move on from that awful contract (let alone never agree to it) multiple times. Never did. You keep harping on losing the pick that resulted in Trouba. Why? None of the goalies that I listed that were traded recently involved anything close to a first-round pick. The Jets held the chips because a) Pavelec had been a mediocre/below-average goalie to that point in his career and had regressed sharply from his career-high the previous season (which was barely above league average as it was) b) His previous 2-year contract was $1.15M per season. c) He was an RFA. His options were literally go to arbitration, play under the tender, or not play in the NHL that year (either completely sit out or go play in Europe). The Jets ended up increasing his yearly AAV by 223% and increased his term by 150% after he posted a .906 save %. No result of arbitration would have given him the amount he ended up with, and likely not the term as well (considering Pavelec would qualify for UFA after this season were his contract to run out). Want to know how absurd that number is? It's literally a bigger percent increase in salary than Carey Price got from his second contract to his third. The Canadiens gave him a 136% increase. Rask's third contract (which to be fair was only one year) was a 180% increase over his second. It was a bigger increase than Lundqvist got from his second to his third (62%). And if you're going to say "But he was the clear starter, the Jets had no one else!" again, why were the Blackhawks able to sign Crawford to $2.67M for 3 years when they were in the exact same situation? And Christ what about the highway robbery Nashville got with Rinne for 3 years? Literally signed him to a $725k, 1-year contract after he posted a .917 in 52 games, or that his next contract was $3.4M, 2-years when at that point not only was he one of the best goaltenders in the league but he was a free agent when they signed him to those contracts! The Jets got taken for a ride. Possibly the only worse contract they've given out is Jim Slater's new one, and maybe Bogosian's if he never actually develops. I get I get it. You and Lenny have realistic beliefs in that Chevy should of turned a team that made the playoffs once in its existence into at least a Stanley Cup contender... If not a Cup winner, in 3 seasons or less. I'm foolish to not agree. 2014/15 - The official return of the "White Out"!!
|
|
|
Post by lenny on Jul 29, 2014 9:19:25 GMT -6
^^^^^^Now convinced Grumpz doesn't read. 1st round of playoffs would be a start.
|
|
|
Post by jjmoohead on Jul 29, 2014 9:34:37 GMT -6
Lenny, would you be satisified if the Jets made the playoffs one year and there were garbage again right after? Would you be satisifed with that? We could go the way of the leafs. Trade away all our future to get a guy, struggle to get into the playoffs, finally make it and lose historically in game 7 just to be garbage again. Thats the route we would have had to go. Thats not what I want personally.
Also to Chem, of all those goalies, which ones were available in 2012 when Pavs signed a 5 year deal. (Yes it was too long, but Chevy did take a chance that later bit him in the ass and many fans are pissed at him for it today (oddly enough the same thing people are wishing he did with Frolik in paying him what he wanted for the years he wanted). I am also curious what those guys are signed for today and what kind of impact they have on their team now.
I kinda see the other goalies mentioned irrelevant at this point because they were not necessarily available at the time of the signing or at the value they were picked up for now.
EDIT: Also which new Jim Slater deal? He was signed in 2012 at 1.6 for 3 years.
|
|
|
Post by lenny on Jul 29, 2014 9:41:38 GMT -6
Lenny, would you be satisified if the Jets made the playoffs one year and there were garbage again right after? Would you be satisifed with that? We could go the way of the leafs. Trade away all our future to get a guy, struggle to get into the playoffs, finally make it and lose historically in game 7 just to be garbage again. Thats the route we would have had to go. Thats not what I want personally. Also to Chem, of all those goalies, which ones were available in 2012 when Pavs signed a 5 year deal. (Yes it was too long, but Chevy did take a chance that later bit him in the ass and many fans are pissed at him for it today (oddly enough the same thing people are wishing he did with Frolik in paying him what he wanted for the years he wanted). I am also curious what those guys are signed for today and what kind of impact they have on their team now. I kinda see the other goalies mentioned irrelevant at this point because they were not necessarily available at the time of the signing or at the value they were picked up for now. Probably would be satisfied with a start in the playoffs. You going off on a tangent is what I expected from you. Building by the draft which is what you've been giving lip service to means that you're not going to keep your transitional UFAs and RFAs for extended periods. They'll serve as sacrificial lambs while you build by the draft. That might buy you a season in the playoffs here and there and that is at least an expectation of what will be 5-6 years into Jets history. So before you put words in my mouth {mod edit}
|
|
|
Post by jjmoohead on Jul 29, 2014 9:47:49 GMT -6
You are not necessarily going to make the playoffs in the first 3 years of building through the draft though unless you sell the farm to do so.
You say I am put words into your mouth but then do it to me right after. For the record I didn't make a statement, I asked you a question.
Again, though, why must you always throw in an insult with your posts? What is with your bullying tactics?
|
|
|
Post by lenny on Jul 29, 2014 9:51:11 GMT -6
You are not necessarily going to make the playoffs in the first 3 years of building through the draft though unless you sell the farm to do so. You say I am put words into your mouth but then do it to me right after. For the record I didn't make a statement, I asked you a question. Again, though, why must you always throw in an insult with your posts? What is with your bullying tactics? I'll quote it again so you can see that your reading comprehension has bottomed out, "Lenny, would you be satisified if the Jets made the playoffs one year and there were garbage again right after? Would you be satisifed with that? Where have I said that? Stop projecting and playing the passive aggressive. If you want to put words in my mouth at least man up to it and admit that's what you're doing.
|
|
|
Post by jjmoohead on Jul 29, 2014 9:54:06 GMT -6
Lenny, would you be satisified if the Jets made the playoffs one year and there were garbage again right after? Would you be satisifed with that? I'll quote it again so you can see that your reading comprehension has bottomed out, "Lenny, would you be satisified if the Jets made the playoffs one year and there were garbage again right after? Would you be satisifed with that? Where have I said that? Stop projecting and playing the passive aggressive. If you want to put words in my mouth at least man up to it and admit that's what you're doing. I will double quote it so you can see that at the end of each of those sentences is a QUESTION MARK. Thus a question, and not a statement putting words in your mouth.
|
|
|
Post by lenny on Jul 29, 2014 9:57:22 GMT -6
I'll quote it again so you can see that your reading comprehension has bottomed out, "Lenny, would you be satisified if the Jets made the playoffs one year and there were garbage again right after? Would you be satisifed with that? Where have I said that? Stop projecting and playing the passive aggressive. If you want to put words in my mouth at least man up to it and admit that's what you're doing. I will double quote it so you can see that at the end of each of those sentences is a QUESTION MARK. Thus a question, and not a statement putting words in your mouth. Look it stop being coy. You don't ask rhetorical questions you are making a sarcastic assumption. Your writing devices are a lot of agitprop. At least if you were honest about it.
|
|
|
Post by jjmoohead on Jul 29, 2014 9:59:47 GMT -6
I will double quote it so you can see that at the end of each of those sentences is a QUESTION MARK. Thus a question, and not a statement putting words in your mouth. Look it stop being coy. You don't ask rhetorical questions you are making a sarcastic assumption. Your writing devices are a lot of agitprop. At least if you were honest about it. Now who is putting words into ones mouth? It was a question, nothing more. You took it to not be, thats not on me.
|
|
|
Post by lenny on Jul 29, 2014 10:01:29 GMT -6
Look it stop being coy. You don't ask rhetorical questions you are making a sarcastic assumption. Your writing devices are a lot of agitprop. At least if you were honest about it. Now who is putting words into ones mouth? I was a question, nothing more. You took it to not be, thats not on me. Obviously the definition of passive aggressive. Make a facetious point. And then claim innocence. Shame.
|
|
|
Post by jjmoohead on Jul 29, 2014 10:03:31 GMT -6
Now who is putting words into ones mouth? I was a question, nothing more. You took it to not be, thats not on me. Obviously the definition of passive aggressive. Make a facetious point. And then claim innocence. Shame. You know, or it could have just been a question? lol
|
|
|
Post by lenny on Jul 29, 2014 10:05:16 GMT -6
Obviously the definition of passive aggressive. Make a facetious point. And then claim innocence. Shame. You know, or it could have just been a question? lol Thou dost protest too strongly?
|
|
|
Post by jjmoohead on Jul 29, 2014 10:06:25 GMT -6
You know, or it could have just been a question? lol Thou dost protest too strongly? Simply clarifying your repeated mistake.
|
|