Salary Cap: Salary Cap & Roster Building | Yeah, I got nuthin' ....

[SCPens]

I can't really disagree with him on this one, to be honest. Thornburn is a ****ing awful player. Like he doesn't even deserve a contract. Salary, role and such plays a part in it, but Thornton having a contract is a lot more criminal than Jagr not having a contract.

Need and fit.....apparently you HAVEN'T been reading my posts.

 

[SCPens]

We are just talking about hockey rosters bro. Nobody is dumb because they disagree on hockey rosters.

Hey c'mon, I didn't call anyone dumb. But hmmmm, is that why I feel like I do.....??

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Okay. Iginla or Doan then.

Doan retired.

I can't really disagree with him on this one, to be honest. Thornburn is a ****ing awful player. Like he doesn't even deserve a contract. Salary, role and such plays a part in it, but Thornton having a contract is a lot more criminal than Jagr not having a contract.

But it's not really the same thing. Teams always seem to like to sign these "enforcers" for dirt cheap to carry as a 13th forward. There's no impediment to signing them because how cheap they are and the fact you can healthy scratch them without them making a fuss or making demands about where they expect to play in your lineup.

Jagr (and Iginla) aren't going to sign for league minimum, so you have to then factor in cap space. You also have to guarantee them a top six spot in your lineup, or they won't want to sign with you.

Jagr has even stated he's being very picky about where to sign. So it's not about the fact no one has offered him a deal, but he's chosen not to sign until he finds the perfect situation for him.

 

[HandshakeLine]

Jagr has straight up said in the Czech press that he wants top 6 time and PP1 and will not accept anything less, nor will he take a pay cut.

Jarda gonna Jarda.

 

[Empoleon8771]

But it's not really the same thing. Teams always seem to like to sign these "enforcers" for dirt cheap to carry as a 13th forward. There's no impediment to signing them because how cheap they are and the fact you can healthy scratch them without them making a fuss or making demands about where they expect to play in your lineup.

Jagr (and Iginla) aren't going to sign for league minimum, so you have to then factor in cap space. You also have to guarantee them a top six spot in your lineup, or they won't want to sign with you.

Jagr has even stated he's being very picky about where to sign. So it's not about the fact no one has offered him a deal, but he's chosen not to sign until he finds the perfect situation for him.

And I disagree with that because Thornburn is awful at hockey

I agree with Pixies not because Jagr deserved a contract before Thorburn, but because Thorburn flat out doesn't deserve a contract and Jagr doesn't have one yet. The "Thorburn doesn't deserve a contract" is the driving force here much more than Jagr. Jagr doesn't have a contract right now because he thinks he's still like 33, not 45. Thorburn flat out shouldn't have a contract.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

And I disagree with that because Thornburn is awful at hockey

I agree with Pixies not because Jagr deserved a contract before Thorburn, but because Thorburn flat out doesn't deserve a contract and Jagr doesn't have one yet. The "Thorburn doesn't deserve a contract" is the driving force here much more than Jagr. Jagr doesn't have a contract right now because he thinks he's still like 33, not 45. Thorburn flat out shouldn't have a contract.

Then pixie should have just stated "it's a joke that someone like Thorburn has a contract", indicating a player of his ilk isn't NHL-caliber. But he added Jagr not having one to his statement, as though inferring that teams were willing to offer Thorburn a deal but not Jagr.

My issue isn't with him thinking Thorburn being signed is a joke, but rather the inclusion of Jagr as though one was more desirable than the other being the joke.

Maybe it's just interpretation and semantics, but the two signings just don't have anything to do with one another because of the circumstances involved (ie. Jagr simply choosing not to sign yet, as opposed to some scrub being signed before him because no one is interested in Jagr).

 

[Gurglesons]

Then pixie should have just stated "it's a joke that someone like Thorburn has a contract", indicating a player of his ilk isn't NHL-caliber. But he added Jagr not having one to his statement, as though inferring that teams were willing to offer Thorburn a deal but not Jagr.

My issue isn't with him thinking Thorburn being signed is a joke, but rather the inclusion of Jagr as though one was more desirable than the other being the joke.

Maybe it's just interpretation and semantics, but the two signings just don't have anything to do with one another because of the circumstances involved (ie. Jagr simply choosing not to sign yet, as opposed to some scrub being signed before him because no one is interested in Jagr).

"It's a joke that Thorburn has a contract."

 

[SCPens]

And I disagree with that because Thornburn is awful at hockey

I agree with Pixies not because Jagr deserved a contract before Thorburn, but because Thorburn flat out doesn't deserve a contract and Jagr doesn't have one yet. The "Thorburn doesn't deserve a contract" is the driving force here much more than Jagr. Jagr doesn't have a contract right now because he thinks he's still like 33, not 45. Thorburn flat out shouldn't have a contract.

And you're telling me that I don't back up my arguments. C'mon now, saying that Thorburn is aweful at hockey and flat out doesn't deserve a contract is a joke. What do you know about the Blues and what they need? Have you been in their room, do you know how their core feels about having or not having a player on their team to police the shenanigans that the talented players are exposed to game in and game out? This game isn't all about Corsi and other random stats, it's about constructing the right group of players who will go to battle for one another over a bloody LONG season which has a great deal of ups and downs. All of which contributes to the further growth of such a group. But I get it, I'm not challenging the percentage of defensive zone faceoffs or the number of goals Archy would score over Reaves if he were to be given those 10 minutes a game on the 4th line. But again, thanks for the pep talk...

 

[Empoleon8771]

And you're telling me that I don't back up my arguments. C'mon now, saying that Thorburn is aweful at hockey and flat out doesn't deserve a contract is a joke. What do you know about the Blues and what they need? Have you been in their room, do you know how their core feels about having or not having a player on their team to police the shenanigans that the talented players are exposed to game in and game out? This game isn't all about Corsi and other random stats, it's about constructing the right group of players who will go to battle for one another over a bloody LONG season which has a great deal of ups and downs. All of which contributes to the further growth of such a group. But I get it, I'm not challenging the percentage of defensive zone faceoffs or the number of goals Archy would score over Reaves if he were to be given those 10 minutes a game on the 4th line. But again, thanks for the pep talk...

So basically, to sum up your argument, Thornton deserves a contract because a GM gave him a contract and I'm just an idiot who isn't a GM, so how would I know he doesn't deserve a contract? Thanks for proving my point with my original post, really accurate representation of what I was talking about.

 

[Gurglesons]

So basically, to sum up your argument, Thornton deserves a contract because a GM gave him a contract and I'm just an idiot who isn't a GM, so how would I know he doesn't deserve a contract? Thanks for proving my point with my original post, real accurate representation of what I was talking about.

Nah, you aren't in the room and you've never played the game.

 

[FreeBobbyFarnham]

Looks like he's gonna make the team.

 

[PensandCaps]

Because Thorbrun serves a purpose on the bench and on the ice that analytics can't measure. So let me alter what you said above, NHL GMs are just as idiotic as SOME HF posters sometimes...

Lol what? Thorburn serves a negative purpose. He's so bad. You don't need to be an analytic geek to see that. You only had to have watched a few jets games the past two years to see that. You know how many Jets fans rejoiced when he left? All of them. Because he like adams, he kept getting games for some reason over young players like Petan,Copp and Dano.

 

[Riptide]

Who is being contrarian now? Lol

I mean Kostin is an offensive forward that dropped. Just like Sprong and Kappy. Seemed like the type of player we would've grabbed in a second given our history with JR.

In terms of the defensemen, defensive d in juniors are more difficult to hope to pan out. As an organization I'm just saying I'd like to see a different approach. I'm not saying anything else.

And yet knowing that, Rutherford still moved that 1st. If he really thought that Kostin was worth it, he would have worked out another deal with STL and make that pick.

Because it's not a bad thing. I'm sure I'll enjoy watching him play. But I'd still rather have Kostin and potentially a top 6 forward than Reaves. Even if he's good at what he does.

If Rutherford had made that pick... I highly doubt it would have been Kostin that he would have picked. We're stacked upfront and on the wings specifically. Odds are he would have been drafting a D or a C regardless... which means even if we hadn't traded for Reaves, we wouldn't have been selecting Kostin. So this idea that we have one at the expense of another is very very faulty.

 

[SCPens]

So basically, to sum up your argument, Thornton deserves a contract because a GM gave him a contract and I'm just an idiot who isn't a GM, so how would I know he doesn't deserve a contract? Thanks for proving my point with my original post.

No I'm asking you to get out from behind your computer and your 'stats' and open your mind to what REALLY contributes to a winning environment. So let me get this straight, you disagree with Doug Armstrong's signing of Chris Thorburn (and me, but we already knew that part) when Doug's being paid a great deal of money to construct an NHL roster with a team of knowledgeable hockey people below him....but because you jump up and down with your hands on your hips saying Thorburn's an aweful hockey player and doesn't deserve an NHL contract by the laws of the HF Boards you're right and Armstrong's wrong. That's beauty. But I guess I should stop with this illogical way of thinking because I'm simply further proving YOUR point......got it!!

And just for the record, I'm not the one who said you're an idiot...

 

[PensandCaps]

No I'm asking you to get out from behind your computer and your 'stats' and open your mind to what REALLY contributes to a winning environment. So let me get this straight, you disagree with Doug Armstrong's signing of Chris Thorburn (and me, but we already knew that part) when Doug's being paid a great deal of money to construct an NHL roster with a team of knowledgeable hockey people below him....but because you jump up and down with your hands on your hips saying Thorburn's an aweful hockey player and doesn't deserve an NHL contract by the laws of the HF Boards you're right and Armstrong's wrong. That's beauty. But I guess I should stop with this illogical way of thinking because I'm simply further proving YOUR point......got it!!

And just for the record, I'm not the one who said you're an idiot...

Coming from someone who actually watches the Jets.... Thorburn is one of the worst starting players in the NHL. Trust me. He is not helping you win. He's helping the other team win, so in a way you're right, he does help teams win, the ones he faces.

 

[Empoleon8771]

No I'm asking you to get out from behind your computer and your 'stats' and open your mind to what REALLY contributes to a winning environment. So let me get this straight, you disagree with Doug Armstrong's signing of Chris Thorburn (and me, but we already knew that part) when Doug's being paid a great deal of money to construct an NHL roster with a team of knowledgeable hockey people below him....but because you jump up and down with your hands on your hips saying Thorburn's an aweful hockey player and doesn't deserve an NHL contract by the laws of the HF Boards you're right and Armstrong's wrong. That's beauty. But I guess I should stop with this illogical way of thinking because I'm simply further proving YOUR point......got it!!

And just for the record, I'm not the one who said you're an idiot...

So basically, to sum up your argument in this post, Thornton deserves a contract because a GM gave him a contract and I'm just an idiot who isn't a GM, so how would I know he doesn't deserve a contract? Thanks for proving my point with my original post again, because you literally just did the same thing again. Like are you forgetting what my original point was? You're literally doing exactly what I accused you of doing.

Here's a wild suggestion: if you don't want to have actual discussions here, or you feel like you're "fishing in an empty pond" (your exact words), then why even post here? You used this exact phrase:

I'll argue a point and impart my wisdom when I'm engaged with someone with at least an ounce of intelligence....sadly I feel like I'm fishing in an empty pond.

How isn't that calling people here dumb? If you think you're so above everyone else here, why are you even here?

Coming from someone who actually watches the Jets.... Thorburn is one of the worst starting players in the NHL. Trust me. He is not helping you win. He's helping the other team win, so in a way you're right, he does help teams win, the ones he faces.

Are you a GM though? Yeah, I thought not

Didn't you hear? We're not qualified to have opinions anymore, so just shake your head when your GM does anything and be pompous cheerleaders for them.

 

[Gurglesons]

And yet knowing that, Rutherford still moved that 1st. If he really thought that Kostin was worth it, he would have worked out another deal with STL and make that pick.

I definitely agree. I don't really care about Kostin. I just find the move redundant because of our wing depth.

Like I said I'll have a blast watching Reaves this season.

 

[PensandCaps]

What a weird hill to die on...Defending Chris Thorburn.

 

[BlackAndGold87]

Have Detroit and AA got any closer in agreeing to a contract?

 

[Gurglesons]

What a weird hill to die on...Defending Chris Thorburn.

Yeah. Bizarre.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Have Detroit and AA got any closer in agreeing to a contract?

No, I actually posted this earlier and no one really said anything.



They're $600k apart per year and neither side seems to be budging.

 

[Riptide]

We have 10 Reaves you just don't see them because they're in the AHL.

Even if that's the case, then it's because they're not good enough for the NHL. Reaves is one of the top 2-3 guys at what he does. He's a legit NHL talent who can play at this level while bringing the rough stuff to the table.

You can hate the trade and think it was needless. But the idea that Reaves is easily replaceable is asinine. You can bring in parts of his game. The speed, the hitting or the physical stuff... but few have it all - and there's certainly no one in the AHL who's even close to him.

 

[SCPens]

Yeah. Bizarre.

Riiiiiight, very bizarre. I think you should take Empoleon and Pensandcaps to your interview, you could be the first GM triad in the history of the NHL.

 

[PensandCaps]

Even if that's the case, then it's because they're not good enough for the NHL. Reaves is one of the top 2-3 guys at what he does. He's a legit NHL talent who can play at this level while bringing the rough stuff to the table.

You can hate the trade and think it was needless. But the idea that Reaves is easily replaceable is asinine. You can bring in parts of his game. The speed, the hitting or the physical stuff... but few have it all - and there's certainly no one in the AHL who's even close to him.

He's not a waste of space like sestito. That's for sure. Hell he's probably a better enforcer too.

 

[HandshakeLine]

And again, the idea that Sully will side with Reaves over a talented top-6 player is pretty, frankly, out there.