Confirmed with Link: Jets/Buffalo Blockbuster! part II (Kane and Bogo)

[Howard Chuck]

My issue is that there is a tendency among some of Chevy's detractors to ascribe his good moves to "luck", but his bad moves are all on him. That has been in evidence in this thread regarding the Kane trade. In contrast, I don't think I've seen the same standard applied to other GMs. It seems that as the Jets assemble more and more good pieces he's being characterized as being "lucky" more frequently. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who's noticed this.

The harder Chevy works the luckier he gets! I'm very happy that we have such a "lucky" GM

 

[Blue Shakehead]

My issue is that there is a tendency among some of Chevy's detractors to ascribe his good moves to "luck", but his bad moves are all on him. That has been in evidence in this thread regarding the Kane trade. In contrast, I don't think I've seen the same standard applied to other GMs. It seems that as the Jets assemble more and more good pieces he's being characterized as being "lucky" more frequently. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who's noticed this.

You are right, there are many of us who believe that getting Kyle Connor at #18, trading Kane who just put himself on the IR and trading Ladd (instead of Buff) were all lucky and great outcomes that were not planned but were largely the result of the actions of other people (i.e., Boston's horrendous drafting, Buffalo being a willing partner at that precise moment in history, Ladd refusing to sign and Buff agreeing to sign despite Chevy putting all his eggs in the Ladd basket and not talking to Buff for seven months). The draft lottery is by definition luck.

As for tendencies, I've noticed a tendency among some of Chevy's supporters to ascribe his bad moves to "Paul Maurice" like the Stuart, Thorburn, Peluso and Brian Strait contracts, which is borderline insane.

 

[Grind]

You are right, there are many of us who believe that getting Kyle Connor at #18, trading Kane who just put himself on the IR and trading Ladd (instead of Buff) were all lucky and great outcomes that were not planned but were largely the result of the actions of other people (i.e., Boston's horrendous drafting, Buffalo being a willing partner at that precise moment in history, Ladd refusing to sign and Buff agreeing to sign despite Chevy putting all his eggs in the Ladd basket and not talking to Buff for seven months). The draft lottery is by definition luck.

As for tendencies, I've noticed a tendency among some of Chevy's supporters to ascribe his bad moves to "Paul Maurice" like the Stuart, Thorburn, Peluso and Brian Strait contracts, which is borderline insane.

While agree some of this.

Would signing lad to a reasonable deal of say 5 mil been a bad move?

Cus not paying Ladd a bunch of money isn't good luck it was smart.

So Chevy's only lucky if what he wanted to do (arbitrarily say 5 mil for four years cus I have no idea what would have been "good") would have been bad for us had Ladd agreed

 

[JetsWillFly4Ever]

While agree some of this.

Would signing lad to a reasonable deal of say 5 mil been a bad move?

Cus not paying Ladd a bunch of money isn't good luck it was smart.

So Chevy's only lucky if what he wanted to do (arbitrarily say 5 mil for four years cus I have no idea what would have been "good") would have been bad for us had Ladd agreed

This. Plus he gets no credit for drafting Connor when he was passed over 17 times before that?

Sure, it doesn't look like a hard pick to us but obviously it's not that simple or Boston wouldn't have passed over him 3 times.

Draft lottery was pure luck, no one is denying that. The Kane situation doesn't really involve luck at all or else you could just ascribe every trade ever to the GM 'being lucky that somebody would pay that price'.

I do agree about the Strait/Peluso/Thorbs/Pavs signings though. Those are...yikes. No defending them. Although it would be pretty easy for Maurice to at least get rid of Peluso and tell Chevy to send him to the A if he wanted, imo.

 

[MrBoJangelz71]

So you are saying that Chevy has never made a dumb move and that he has never benefitted from luck?

Saying that any single move was dumb or that any single incident was lucky is not a 'narrative'. No one is saying "that Chevy's mistakes are idiotic, and his good moves are "dumb luck".

Signing Brian Strait was dumb. Winning the draft lottery was luck. That is a long way from Whileee's narrative. That does not mean that Chevy's mistakes are ALL idiotic and that his good moves are ALL dumb luck.

Not stating anything of the sort.

Chevy makes moves that work, and moves that do not. Luck, bad or good, has nothing to do with it. As well, this statement can be made for absolutely EVERY GM that has ever managed a sports entity, throughout the history of sports, and is not unique to Chevy.

What we are seeing more and more of on this forum, is that as Chevy continues to build this team the correct way, and his positive moves dwarf his bad moves, those that are Chevy detractors are running out of examples that they can use to support their dislike of our GM.

The Pavs, Stuart and Thorburn contracts are slowing dying out, and can only be regurgitated by the detractors for so long, before it starts to sound silly bringing the same 3 examples up anytime we are talking about Chevy.

So, as these examples of “dumb†moves dwindle, detractors have resorted to now trying to assess the positive moves as “dumb luck†in hopes of trying to convince us that he is not a solid GM.

Or better yet, the detractor will take an example of a minimal move, one that is so small in the grand scheme of things that it does not register on anyone’s radar other than the detractors, and portray these minimal moves as large albatrosses that will hem this team for years.

A great example of this is Brian Straight being signed to a one year deal worth the league minimum $600k per. This move is so meaningless but because its all the detractors have to work with, they will exploit this meaningless signing as some sort of example of a “dumb moveâ€.

Problem with this assessment is you can go over every NHL roster, and there will be a Brian Straight type player on a similar contract.

Another example is moving up in the draft lottery, and declaring that luck. Yes, luck, but not Chevy being lucky, the team was lucky. The bingo balls and how they fall had was not influenced by Chevy, so it has ZERO to do with his management skills.

I get it when that is all you have to work with, you work with it then, but spare us with redefining the good moves as lucky. Its complete nonsense.

 

[Bartho]

Its nice to see this halfheaded notion that "Chevy is a lucky ditherer" receive the derision it deserves.

 

[sully1410]

You are right, there are many of us who believe that getting Kyle Connor at #18, trading Kane who just put himself on the IR and trading Ladd (instead of Buff) were all lucky and great outcomes that were not planned but were largely the result of the actions of other people (i.e., Boston's horrendous drafting, Buffalo being a willing partner at that precise moment in history, Ladd refusing to sign and Buff agreeing to sign despite Chevy putting all his eggs in the Ladd basket and not talking to Buff for seven months). The draft lottery is by definition luck.

As for tendencies, I've noticed a tendency among some of Chevy's supporters to ascribe his bad moves to "Paul Maurice" like the Stuart, Thorburn, Peluso and Brian Strait contracts, which is borderline insane.

Yea I don't buy any of this. So I guess all GMS are is lucky. No skill involved. What you are complaining about Chevy is the same with every single GM in the league.

 

[Whileee]

You are right, there are many of us who believe that getting Kyle Connor at #18, trading Kane who just put himself on the IR and trading Ladd (instead of Buff) were all lucky and great outcomes that were not planned but were largely the result of the actions of other people (i.e., Boston's horrendous drafting, Buffalo being a willing partner at that precise moment in history, Ladd refusing to sign and Buff agreeing to sign despite Chevy putting all his eggs in the Ladd basket and not talking to Buff for seven months). The draft lottery is by definition luck.

As for tendencies, I've noticed a tendency among some of Chevy's supporters to ascribe his bad moves to "Paul Maurice" like the Stuart, Thorburn, Peluso and Brian Strait contracts, which is borderline insane.

I go by the evidence. Chevy said that he brought in Maurice to provide additional input to assess his current roster. Maurice evidently loves Stuart and Thorburn, so it's not "borderline insane" to suggest that Maurice had some influence on the decision to re-sign them.

"Hiring Paul Maurice is something that we feel very good about as far as the opportunity that we have to hire an experienced National Hockey League coach to come in here and begin putting his stamp on the team, and also on the evaluation process that we're all going to be going through," said Cheveldayoff,

Having a fresh perspective from a coach like Maurice, who now has 1,085 games of NHL coaching experience, is part of Cheveldayoff's plan for the future. Although Maurice only is under contract until the end of this season, Cheveldayoff indicated that he and and his new coach will discuss their plans for Maurice's future in Winnipeg as this season unfolds.

"[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.

Maurice said today that there was one event during the season’s back half that might have been more key than others.

It was the players adopting his vision, especially veteran defenceman Mark Stuart, who signed a four-year contract extension.

"Completely critical," Maurice said. "That was a key for me. Those guys have to be invested in the team. The play of those other veteran guys, like Blake Wheeler’s play... we squeezed some of the veterans and every time, they responded."

Do you still think it is "borderline insane" to suggest that Maurice's opinion had an influence on roster decisions made by Chevy, particularly with respect to Stuart and Thorburn? Can you show any countervailing evidence that Maurice didn't have an influence?

So I think that both Chevy and Maurice have some responsibility for those contracts, though Chevy deserves most of the blame. My main beef with Maurice is that he continues to over-use Stuart and Thorburn when he has better options available on the roster.

I'm not much bothered by Peluso's contract - cheap muscle. Meh, lots of teams do that. He's mostly in the press box unless Maurice thinks he needs to neutralize muscle on the other team. Old-school thinking.

Strait's contract is a bad move that's entirely on Chevy.

What part of the above assessments do you disagree with? I'm curious.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Not stating anything of the sort. Sorry, but that is exactly what you said.

Chevy makes moves that work, and moves that do not. Luck, bad or good, has nothing to do with it. Nonsense. As well, this statement can be made for absolutely EVERY GM that has ever managed a sports entity, throughout the history of sports, and is not unique to Chevy. Where did I ever say it was unique to Chevy?

What we are seeing more and more of on this forum, is that as Chevy continues to build this team the correct way, and his positive moves dwarf his bad moves, those that are Chevy detractors are running out of examples that they can use to support their dislike of our GM. What does this have to do with my post?

The Pavs, Stuart and Thorburn contracts are slowing dying out, and can only be regurgitated by the detractors for so long, before it starts to sound silly bringing the same 3 examples up anytime we are talking about Chevy. Agai9n, what does this have to do with what I said?

So, as these examples of “dumb†moves dwindle, detractors have resorted to now trying to assess the positive moves as “dumb luck†in hopes of trying to convince us that he is not a solid GM.

Or better yet, the detractor will take an example of a minimal move, one that is so small in the grand scheme of things that it does not register on anyone’s radar other than the detractors, and portray these minimal moves as large albatrosses that will hem this team for years.

A great example of this is Brian Straight being signed to a one year deal worth the league minimum $600k per. This move is so meaningless but because its all the detractors have to work with, they will exploit this meaningless signing as some sort of example of a “dumb moveâ€.

Problem with this assessment is you can go over every NHL roster, and there will be a Brian Straight type player on a similar contract. So every GM has made dumb moves. How does that prove that Chevy has made none?

Another example is moving up in the draft lottery, and declaring that luck. Yes, luck, but not Chevy being lucky, the team was lucky. The bingo balls and how they fall had was not influenced by Chevy, so it has ZERO to do with his management skills. Yup. Sometimes you get lucky. Sometimes you don't. What is your point?

I get it when that is all you have to work with, you work with it then, but spare us with redefining the good moves as lucky. Its complete nonsense.

Where did I say that?

What is this post? Are you trying to prove that I have this mythical narrative?

Chevy has made some good, smart moves. He has made some bad, dumb moves. He has had some good luck and some bad luck. That's my 'narrative'.

 

[MrBoJangelz71]

Where did I say that?

What is this post? Are you trying to prove that I have this mythical narrative?

Chevy has made some good, smart moves. He has made some bad, dumb moves. He has had some good luck and some bad luck. That's my 'narrative'.

Where did I say you said that?

My comments are observational towards those that are detractors towards Chevy, which you may or may not belong to.

Your narrative is correct, and can be applied to every general manager that exists in our world today. It almost goes without saying, albeit, there are examples of GM's that make many many more dumb moves than smart moves.

Thankfully Chevy is far from falling into that group.

 

[Dayofthedogs]

Winning the draft lottery is miles away from lucking into a trade.

Winning the lottery itself was lucky.

That said Chevy made quite few decisions that made that outcome a real possibility. Namely, Trading Ladd, sending Hellebyuck back down to the moose and shutting down key players that had injuries they could have played through.

 

[Eyeseeing]

Why Winnipeg and Manitoba?



Strong and diversified economy

•Steady growth thanks to the diversity of the economy
•Built on 10 key industry sectors which helps to mitigate swings in the economy and provides consistency, predictability and control for businesses


Strategic Location

•Geographic centre of North America
•One-hour from Western Canada’s busiest US border crossing
•Within a 24-hour drive to a population of 100 million
•Home to Canada’s official inland port, CentrePort Canada, a 20,000 acre (8,000 hectares) of land for industrial development that includes a foreign trade zone.
•Port of Churchill, Canada’s only arctic seaport


Transportation and Services

•Tri-modal transportation hub (truck, rail and air)
•Headquarters of five of the 20 largest trucking firms in North America
•Three Class 1 rail carriers (CN, CP, BNSF)
•Award winning international airport with 24/7 operations and worldwide freight forwarding


Energy Advantage

•98% of the energy is hydro-electric
•Abundance of clean and renewable energy
•Lowest published rates in North America


Low Cost of Business

•Lowest overall cost of business in Western Canada, Midwestern US, and Pacific US,
•5.2% lower than the average cost of running a business in the US
•Effective government program for businesses
•Government covered health care
•The lowest overall tax rate in the G7 (33%)
•Lower corporate taxes than the US
•Canada/Manitoba’s combined R&D tax incentive program, one of the most generous in the industrialized world, up to 55% of investment

Stable and Productive Workforce



•Highly skilled, loyal and productive
•Growing population
•Best-in-class Provincial Nominee Program for immigration, bringing skilled and specialised workers


A Place to Grow

•Low cost of living
•Most affordable homes in the country
•Most hours of sunshine in Canada
•Hundreds of thousands of lakes
•Highest per capita cottage ownership in the country

I'm not trying to bum anyone out...you guys were aware of these things, right?!

Although the chamber of commerce presentation above is in my opinion true & I love my city...it's very likely not going to resonate with a single/young NHL'er free agent.
Back to topic, when you have a toxic personality in any work place, you run this risk of fracturing your work force.
It appears this was the case which culminated in the famous track suit incident.
Chevy got bailed out by Murray's aggressive tendencies when it comes to trading.
That was a good move by Chevy with some elements of good fortune.
I understand most think Chevy has done a wonderful job here, I am not one of them at this point.
His grade from me is incomplete.
Laine was dumb luck..........

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Show evidence that the return on the Kane/Bogo trade was dumb luck. That's an assertion in this thread.

I didn't make that assertion. Someone making it though still doesn't mean there is the narrative you frequently claim there is. Has Chevy been lucky at times? Absolutely! Am I now creating a 'narrative' to the effect that "all" his good moves are attributable to dumb luck? Absolutely not! I think he has had more good luck than bad. Is that a fault of his? Hardly! Is that a bad thing! Am I complaining about it? No.

Why do you find it so difficult to acknowledge that good luck has played a part in Chevy's success? I defy you to name a single successful person who has not benefitted from some measure of good luck at some point in his or her success. Having some good luck is not like having some deep character flaw.

 

[cbcwpg]

“Sometimes in life and in hockey, you’re better off to be lucky than smart,” said Jimmy Devellano, the Hall of Fame executive with the Detroit Red Wings. “From my 45 years in the NHL, I can tell you, yes, you’ve got to be prepared. Yes, you’ve got to do your homework. Yes, you’ve got to have good scouts. Yes, all those things are vital and important, but believe me, when you’re talking about 18-year-old kids, boy does it ever pay to get lucky.”

 

[Sabadecade]

"I am a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work, the more I have of it." - F. L. Emerson

 

[Blue Shakehead]

I didn't make that assertion. Someone making it though still doesn't mean there is the narrative you frequently claim there is. Has Chevy been lucky at times? Absolutely! Am I now creating a 'narrative' to the effect that "all" his good moves are attributable to dumb luck? Absolutely not! I think he has had more good luck than bad. Is that a fault of his? Hardly! Is that a bad thing! Am I complaining about it? No.

Why do you find it so difficult to acknowledge that good luck has played a part in Chevy's success? I defy you to name a single successful person who has not benefitted from some measure of good luck at some point in his or her success. Having some good luck is not like having some deep character flaw.

“Sometimes in life and in hockey, you’re better off to be lucky than smart,†said Jimmy Devellano, the Hall of Fame executive with the Detroit Red Wings. “From my 45 years in the NHL, I can tell you, yes, you’ve got to be prepared. Yes, you’ve got to do your homework. Yes, you’ve got to have good scouts. Yes, all those things are vital and important, but believe me, when you’re talking about 18-year-old kids, boy does it ever pay to get lucky.â€

Two excellent posts.

 

[MrBoJangelz71]

Why do you find it so difficult to acknowledge that good luck has played a part in Chevy's success? I defy you to name a single successful person who has not benefitted from some measure of good luck at some point in his or her success. Having some good luck is not like having some deep character flaw.

Its a silly way of discrediting someone's accomplishments, work and effort, by saying they got lucky.

Its what people say when they lose to someone else and cannot handle the harsh reality that the other person was better, rather they simply got lucky.

The term "lucky" is applied to Chevy by his detractors on a regular bases on this forum.

Its used as frequently as it is, because his detractors are limited in examples of failed moves and transaction to use to show us what they believe to be true. So instead, they have to resort to labeling the successful moves, and there are plenty of em, as pure Luck.


I guess the best way to figure this out is for you to give us your top 10 LUCKIEST moves Chevy has made, and exactly why these moves are deemed "LUCKY"?

 

[Whileee]

I didn't make that assertion. Someone making it though still doesn't mean there is the narrative you frequently claim there is. Has Chevy been lucky at times? Absolutely! Am I now creating a 'narrative' to the effect that "all" his good moves are attributable to dumb luck? Absolutely not! I think he has had more good luck than bad. Is that a fault of his? Hardly! Is that a bad thing! Am I complaining about it? No.

Why do you find it so difficult to acknowledge that good luck has played a part in Chevy's success? I defy you to name a single successful person who has not benefitted from some measure of good luck at some point in his or her success. Having some good luck is not like having some deep character flaw.

I don't think there's any evidence that the Kane/Bogo trade was an example of "luck". Do you have any?

Saying that sometimes people are lucky is not the same as claiming that particular decisions/actions were "lucky". Winning the 2nd pick in the lottery was certainly good luck. It is much less tenable to claim that signing Buff (not Ladd), trading Ladd, trading Bogo/Kane were all "lucky" moves. To me, that's creating a "narrative" around the contention that Chevy's good moves tend to be lucky, but his bad moves are dumb.

By the way, I'm not claiming that you personally have created that narrative, but I don't think I'm off-base in suggesting that it exists.

By the way, have you ever seen any of Chevy's detractors claim that Nill got lucky in his trade for Seguin?

 

[DeepFrickinValue]

Chevy had a bit of a learning curve for the first few years made a few mistakes. Seems he has gotten progressively better. Kane trade was phenomenal, could he have gotten more if the trade was done a few years prior? perhaps, but people thought kane was going to be a 40 goal scorer.

The Ladd trade was great. He seemed to hit the peak of the market perfectly. There was some luck as he may have received less if he waited longer or acted too soon.

Some of the recent resignings Buff and Scheiff have been great as well.

The recent FA signing of Mattias may be similar to the Perrault signing which will be viewed as fabulous in a few years.

In general, I think Chevy is like a fine wine, getting better with age.

 

[zsam]

Chevy had a bit of a learning curve for the first few years made a few mistakes. Seems he has gotten progressively better. Kane trade was phenomenal, could he have gotten more if the trade was done a few years prior? perhaps, but people thought kane was going to be a 40 goal scorer.

The Ladd trade was great. He seemed to hit the peak of the market perfectly. There was some luck as he may have received less if he waited longer or acted too soon.

Some of the recent resignings Buff and Scheiff have been great as well.

The recent FA signing of Mattias may be similar to the Perrault signing which will be viewed as fabulous in a few years.

In general, I think Chevy is like a fine wine, getting better with age.

Totally agree with this. That is where Strait signing confused me!!!

 

[DeepFrickinValue]

Totally agree with this. That is where Strait signing confused me!!!

Strait may have other qualities/purpose we don't know. Maybe intended for moose?

 

[Grind]

Could someone please post a master list of these so called detractors and supporters?

Just so I can be on the same page as you guys and be sure to interpret all posts from the appropriate sides through the preconceived narrative (which seems to be the word de jour) rather then approaching their posts with measured reasoning and considering both sides may have valid points at times.


Disclaimer: incase it wasn't painfully obvious the above is dripping with sarcasm.

I think we'd all be better off by not assuming there are lines in the sand that certain folks are entrenched in and then referring to them as an open ended third party.

It gets extremely confusing and frustrating when people appear to be arguing against you using quotes/stances you didn't make, but hiding behind a veiled "they them etc" to avoid actual debate over said misinterpretations.

I know, unfortunately you will have e to back yourself up and admit your own errors when doing this, which would just be awful, but it does tend to create a better discussion.

 

[zsam]

Strait may have other qualities/purpose we don't know. Maybe intended for moose?

Paid 600K in AHL?

 

[Grind]

Paid 600K in AHL?

Definitely not unheard of or unusual.

 

[YWGinYYZ]

Enough of this narrative garbage, Chevy apologist/hater labeling, etc - either debate the points being made without pigeon-holing people, or you'll get infracted for flaming, and banned from this and the other on-going Chevy/Maurice thread.