If Chevy were fired, who would you want to replace him?

[KingBogo]

I hope better days are in our near future, let's be honest we can't get much worse.

My fear is this isn't a one year slump, I suspect next year is going to be bad year again (bottom 5?).

Many here have said for a 3-4 years this core should of been blown up.....but it wasn't we were stuck in mediocrity....no man's land. This imo has been Chevy's biggest mistake in his 5 years as our GM.

Agreed blowing things up earlier might have been the best choice, but blowing it up now at least allows a couple high picks to hit the ground running with a nice group of younger players and a couple nice vets. But at least we aren't spending future resources trying to prop up a group that together are nothing more than a bubble team. And I pray this marks the end of signing the old guard to bad contracts. Probably my biggest criticism of Chevy is the loyalty he has shown to the core group of players that came with the team.

 

[KingBogo]

^ That's why you trade one or two of the older core players now (should have been earlier) for full value instead of holding on until they're past their prime or sold as rentals like Ladd was.
Once we have a foundation of youth (#1C, another D) in place you can sign/trade for more vet leadership.

I'd much prefer this than to lose the nerve and start adding vets to try to return back to the bubble track.

 

[Hunter368]

Agreed blowing things up earlier might have been the best choice, but blowing it up now at least allows a couple high picks to hit the ground running with a nice group of younger players and a couple nice vets. But at least we aren't spending future resources trying to prop up a group that together are nothing more than a bubble team. And I pray this marks the end of signing the old guard to bad contracts. Probably my biggest criticism of Chevy is the loyalty he has shown to the core group of players that came with the team.

Yup, I think our only realistic option was our mini rebuild at this point....the damage from not doing it earlier is already done, can't be undone....we can only do what's best at this point. Thus mini rebuild.

I hope this ends the era of bad contracts for bad players.

 

[surixon]

Agreed blowing things up earlier might have been the best choice, but blowing it up now at least allows a couple high picks to hit the ground running with a nice group of younger players and a couple nice vets. But at least we aren't spending future resources trying to prop up a group that together are nothing more than a bubble team. And I pray this marks the end of signing the old guard to bad contracts. Probably my biggest criticism of Chevy is the loyalty he has shown to the core group of players that came with the team.

I think they all with the exception of Pavelec have performed vital roles. Yeah Stuart sucks on the ice, but he is a true pro off the ice, leaves it all on the ice and will sacrifice and stand up for teammates. I'm sure Chevy is aware of his shortcomings but is likely willing to live with them so that Stuart can pass these traits off to the kids coming up.

 

[broinwhyteridge]

Borat might be a good choice.

 

[Eyeseeing]

We didn’t regress, its not regression when our nucleus is the 3rd youngest in the league, possibly youngest for the remainder of the season, and is developing.

This regression you see, may end up being the most important season in this team’s history, as we may regress right into a franchise talent.

Chevy sucks at understanding the pulse of this team? Completely false.



In a soundly run business, Chevy does not get fired, as business strategies, strategic planning takes years to accomplish, and all smart private owners understand this, such as Chipman. Chicago spent close to a decade accumulating pieces to get to where they are today. That fan base had to endure several seasons of mediocrity, before they could reap the rewards. Detroit has been a perennial playoff team for the past 25 years. Trace back their steps, prior to the mid 80’s when they became one of the best run franchises in the NHL. 16 years they missed the playoffs. Look at their drafting during that time. They picked and retained close to half their picks, developed them into their system, and turned themselves completely around. But 16 miserable seasons of losing and collecting assets before they reaped success."

99 points last year����
How many will we get this year ?
That's the definition of regression.
You contradicted yourself by the way.

I disagree with all due respect that
Chevy has the pulse of the team
Example when he FINALLY
Fired Noel .I remember Chevy saying he asked Noel why the one step forward one back ???
Hello Chevy you didn't do enough to give the team a chance .
Pomo is having the same issue mediocrity .... That's roster based.
Extending ST coaches who suck at their job , yes Chevy would be fired in the real world based on the last 5 years.

Things take time yes, should there be some improvements yes.

Have they translated no
Will they eventually MAYBE

I am willing not to comment anymore as I want to see one more season before calling for Chevys head

Cheers

 

[YWGinYYZ]

99 points last year����
How many will we get this year ?
That's the definition of regression.

This isn't the definition of regression - regression doesn't mean going backwards. Regression means regression to the mean - your most likely result. Given the Jets 5v5 play last year, and very good 5v5 play this year, a regression would happen NEXT year if they return to winning.

Now, if you feel that they should be a 70 point team, and they over-achieved last year, then yes: this is a regression.

 

[Eyeseeing]

This isn't the definition of regression - regression doesn't mean going backwards. Regression means regression to the mean - your most likely result. Given the Jets 5v5 play last year, and very good 5v5 play this year, a regression would happen NEXT year if they return to winning.


Now, if you feel that they should be a 70 point team, and they over-achieved last year, then yes: this is a regression.

Hi Gin
I stand corrected on term thanks.
Are we progressing ? No
Was last year an outlier ? Yes
If you presented a sales plan without any noticeable progression to most employers and didn't deliver, would you be out of a job ? Yes
My last post on Chevy
I HOPE as a Jets fan the youth works next year

 

[YWGinYYZ]

Hi Gin
I stand corrected on term thanks.
Are we progressing ? No
Was last year an outlier ? Yes
If you presented a sales plan without any noticeable progression to most employers and didn't deliver, would you be out of a job ? Yes
My last post on Chevy
I HOPE as a Jets fan the youth works next year

Hey Eyeseeing - sorry, t'is a pet peeve of mine.

I understand where you're coming from with your points, but I actually don't believe that last year was an outlier - our 5v5 play was top 10 in the league. The main changes this year are: non-optimal goaltending, too many penalties combined with a terrible PK (the 2nd wasn't a problem last year), a poor PP (hmm: I think I see a pattern here, Mr. Vincent), and some lost depth at the bottom end combined with a slow start / poor start for Lowry and Burmi.

I think we'll bounce back, which is why I'm OK with us shooting for the bottom this year - no better time to do it, IMO.

 

[White Out 403*]

This isn't the definition of regression - regression doesn't mean going backwards. Regression means regression to the mean - your most likely result. Given the Jets 5v5 play last year, and very good 5v5 play this year, a regression would happen NEXT year if they return to winning.

Now, if you feel that they should be a 70 point team, and they over-achieved last year, then yes: this is a regression.

No, in this case regression would mean returning to a former or lesser state. You know, the primary definition that fits this scenario best. The Jets have regressed to a worse point in standing than year 1. We can dress up this turd all we like, but, it's still a pig wearing lipstick.

We can certainly hope that next season we pull a Dallas and get great goaltending and our 5v5 possession stats this year translate to success next year. But that's a conversation for 2016-17. We have, no doubt, regressed.

 

[YWGinYYZ]

No, in this case regression would mean returning to a former or lesser state. You know, the primary definition that fits this scenario best. The Jets have regressed to a worse point in standing than year 1. We can dress up this turd all we like, but, it's still a pig wearing lipstick.

We can certainly hope that next season we pull a Dallas and get great goaltending and our 5v5 possession stats this year translate to success next year. But that's a conversation for 2016-17. We have, no doubt, regressed.

Sorry, the definition is not returning to a former state - it's regressing to some "mean". You can argue what that mean might be (IE: I think they're better than they're showing, based on their 5v5 play - you obviously don't, which is fine), but you can't argue the definition of regression.

 

[Eyeseeing]

Hey Eyeseeing - sorry, t'is a pet peeve of mine.

I understand where you're coming from with your points, but I actually don't believe that last year was an outlier - our 5v5 play was top 10 in the league. The main changes this year are: non-optimal goaltending, too many penalties combined with a terrible PK (the 2nd wasn't a problem last year), a poor PP (hmm: I think I see a pattern here, Mr. Vincent), and some lost depth at the bottom end combined with a slow start / poor start for Lowry and Burmi.

I think we'll bounce back, which is why I'm OK with us shooting for the bottom this year - no better time to do it, IMO.

Thanks you are indeed a class act.
Well if we can get Austin perhaps it will be worth it all.

 

[DonM]

Sorry, the definition is not returning to a former state - it's regressing to some "mean". You can argue what that mean might be (IE: I think they're better than they're showing, based on their 5v5 play - you obviously don't, which is fine), but you can't argue the definition of regression.

That's what it means in statistics, not elsewhere. A simple trip to dictionary.com will clear up your confusion on the matter.

 

[garret9]

I would prefer not replacing Chevy but supplementing Chevy.

All GMs will have their blind spots and weaknesses. They are human and imperfect by nature. Replacing him unless we score something special likely ends up only a lateral move IMO.

I'm a big proponent of think tanks, especially heavily diverse speciality ones. Adding voices of expertise that differs from the traditional hockey minds will be a huge asset for the first team to follow through. The analytical revolution is a step towards this, but I'd suggest adding people from other special fields .

 

[Crocket]

Mike Smith

Yes!
Seriously, Carlyle.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Sorry, the definition is not returning to a former state - it's regressing to some "mean". You can argue what that mean might be (IE: I think they're better than they're showing, based on their 5v5 play - you obviously don't, which is fine), but you can't argue the definition of regression.

re·gres·sion
rəˈɡreSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: regression; plural noun: regressions

1.
a return to a former or less developed state.
a return to an earlier stage of life or a supposed previous life, especially through hypnosis or mental illness, or as a means of escaping present anxieties.
"regression therapy"
a lessening of the severity of a disease or its symptoms.
"he seemed able to produce a regression in this disease"
2.
Statistics
a measure of the relation between the mean value of one variable (e.g., output) and corresponding values of other variables (e.g., time and cost).

See definition 1.
I realize we are usually using it in the context of statistics here. 'to the mean' is implied in that case. Some people may be using it in its broader definition though.

 

[YWGinYYZ]

That's what it means in statistics, not elsewhere. A simple trip to dictionary.com will clear up your confusion on the matter.

Yes, and I'm speaking about statistics. Both definitions are valid depending on the context, but I'm discussing regressing to where we should be in the standings, which certainly isn't at the bottom of the NHL based on our stats. No confusion here, thanks!

Edit: Mort - I'm discussing statistics.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

I would prefer not replacing Chevy but supplementing Chevy.

All GMs will have their blind spots and weaknesses. They are human and imperfect by nature. Replacing him unless we score something special likely ends up only a lateral move IMO.

I'm a big proponent of think tanks, especially heavily diverse speciality ones. Adding voices of expertise that differs from the traditional hockey minds will be a huge asset for the first team to follow through. The analytical revolution is a step towards this, but I'd suggest adding people from other special fields .

Some of the flaws in Chevy's performance (Maurice's too for that matter) drive me crazy at times. His off-season's of missed opportunities are the worst. Overall though I don't think he is any worse than average so far. I suspect that if we could produce accurate ratings of GMs the vast majority of them would be pretty close to average. So if we replaced him and did a good job of choosing the replacement we would probably get another average GM. Sometimes that works well if you get 2 in a row with offsetting strengths and weaknesses so that they complement each other but that is probably more luck than anything else.

I will continue to hope that having built a better foundation Chevy is going to kill it 'next' off-season at least for a little longer. Just like I keep hoping Maurice will consign Stu to the PB. He still hasn't had a franchise wrecking blunder. Neither has he had a franchise making moment.

 

[Analyst365]

never mind

 

[YWGinYYZ]

I would prefer not replacing Chevy but supplementing Chevy.

All GMs will have their blind spots and weaknesses. They are human and imperfect by nature. Replacing him unless we score something special likely ends up only a lateral move IMO.

I'm a big proponent of think tanks, especially heavily diverse speciality ones. Adding voices of expertise that differs from the traditional hockey minds will be a huge asset for the first team to follow through. The analytical revolution is a step towards this, but I'd suggest adding people from other special fields .

You have some contact with people in the Jets organization - they do APPEAR to have some analysis in-house. What other sort of people / consultants would you like to see them go after or bring on board to help? I'm curious, as they're so tight lipped about everything, I have no idea what they do behind closed doors, or who makes recommendations on decisions, etc.

 

[paul-laus]

At this point, Chevy could be replaced by a mannequin or a crash test dummy and they'd manage better...

 

[garret9]

You have some contact with people in the Jets organization - they do APPEAR to have some analysis in-house. What other sort of people / consultants would you like to see them go after or bring on board to help? I'm curious, as they're so tight lipped about everything, I have no idea what they do behind closed doors, or who makes recommendations on decisions, etc.

My contacts are mostly low-level peons and such. This more speculation than knowing... but I think the Jets track things, but don't really have analysts. I think the data is mostly being looked at by prototypical hockey management types, former players and such. It's the integration of this quantitative data (stats) and qualitative data (scouting) that I'm skeptical on.

That said, what I'm talking about though is about creation of an analytics and development team that has many different specialties. Math, statistics, computers are the traditional ones, but social sciences, economics, psychologists, etc. You get them working together at parallel as a team on things like integrating qualitative, quantitative, and intangibles.

 

[YWGinYYZ]

That would be interesting, garret, especially in trying to figure out some sort of model / weighting for the various inputs that would result from that team.

Have you discussed this with teams (or even the peons)? Any feedback? It sounds like it could be a revolutionary / next step way to approach things.