Rich

Had a mini pack with the Moose so used to go to about 10 games per year. The Moose were huge with kids and families. A family of four could actually afford to go to a game. That is one of the biggest differences I've noticed between the Jets and Moose. The percentage of kids in the stands. Throw in the affiliation with the Jets and I think they could do okay for a couple of years. I don't think they will draw as high as when the Jets weren't here.

Many posts have been deleted in this thread, mostly to delete a few "root" posts that many people quoted. If I missed any, then they will be deleted as I find them.

NHL wanted it after Grey Cup, Bombers wanted it later. According to the Bombers, this wasn't the reason the game was delayed, this is apparently s a result of a consultant's report they got last week, so they didn't know the extent of the defects or the suggested course of action when the outdoor classic was being negotiated. This was in the free press article http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/sports/football/bombers/295009101.html?cx_navSource=d-top-image As to your other post about the nit picking. That is an outline, and I'm guessing the details would be available when they go to court where the onus is on them to prove each of those points, so that is why some of it won't make sense to you. And if those things were the only thing wrong with the stadium, they probably wouldn't be suing. But since they have extensive costs because of the drainage issues, it only makes sense to throw it all in there as it strengthens their argument about negligence somewhere.

You read some of the old articles that were brought up yesterday on how design deficiencies were identified early, but the message from senior stakeholders was to keep going no matter what. That they couldn't afford to wait to address those things due to the old stadium not being able to be serviceable for lengthy delays and the rising cost of steel and you think that maybe that wasn't all the contractors fault, that senior stakeholders signed off on some issues to save time. Then you read that list, and a lot of it sounds like pure negligence. You wonder how some of those issues even passed inspection. Either way, this is going to be a lengthy and ugly court battle, with a lot of he said she said and passing blame.

The general contractor, architect and engineering firm are all national companies.Don't let reality get in the way of a good political discussion.Exactly. Logic and facts aren't welcome on these forums. Speculation and rumors are where it's at. Funny, I've never deleted a post because they contained logic and facts. I would say they are welcome.

Seem to recall they both were on CHI when they won. So Ladd has 2? Yes, Ladd has won with both Carolina and Chicago. The win with Carolina was his rookie season.

Just got this email from the Bombers and Wade (not to me personally, I imagine season ticket lists)

Haven't seen any tweets on starging goalie yet.

I agree Pavelec hasn't turned out, it doesn't mean it was a bad deal. I judge a "bad deal" based on what we gave up to get it and what the long term impact the contract has to the club. We gave up nothing to get Pavelec so no big deal there, he was already our property. Unlike Setoguchi where we gave up a 2nd round pick for a year of useless play. As for the long term impact of the deal, I don't think it has hurt the Jets either as I described in my original post. You could argue that using that money we gave Pavelec on a different player and paying an AHL goalie less might have helped the team (I'd still argue an AHL goalie starting would be worse then Pavelec), but at some point you still need to budget to pay a starting goalie a starting goalie salary, and the team really wasn't ready to really compete until this year anyway. We gave up nothing to sign him, he has a reasonable contract that doesn't hurt the club long term, and at the time that we signed him there was a good chance that he was going to actually turn into a good starting goalie. Things don't always work out, but his contract hasn't hurt the club.

And the Pavelec contract. Chevy must have been drunk when he negotiated that. I actually have no problem with Pavelec's contract. It might be a year longer then I'd like, but a cap hit of $3.9M is reasonable for a starting goalie, which is what he was when it was signed. And the Jets really had no other options when he was signed. They weren't going to trade for a starting goalie with where they were in their program, and there was still a chance / belief that Pavelec may turn into something more. We've got Pavelec under contract for 2 more years after this one. Hutchinson is signed for 1 more year after this one for 600k (575k cap hit). So it doesn't matter for next year. Even if you can't trade Pavelec over the next year, you can still manage that transition year as Hutch will still be an RFA. I believe because of Hutch's age, you won't be able to give him a bridge deal as I believe he will only have 1 year of RFA left before being a UFA, hence why Pavelec's contract might be one year too long. But, even if you can't dump Pavelec for a bag of pucks, you can still manage the two of them for that one year after Hutch gets a raise. It isn't at all an anchor of a contract like others out there. I still believe it was the right move at the time they signed Pavelec.

I think the only mistake I've seen Chevy make with trades is trading for Setoguchi. Been very happy with most of his deals.

Must mean that Wheeler is still playing hurt, and they want to limit his ice time or ease him into the game. Much like the did with Frolik a while back (or was that last year?)

I actually watched curling on TV long before I started playing. Started playing in my early 30's and still do today. We dont play in a highly competitive league, and once the game is done honestly don't care if we had won or lost. But it is a nice way to get you out on a regular basis during the cold months, throw some rocks, drink a few beers, and catch up with friends.

If 3 - 3.5 would get Frolik signed he would be signed already. IMO he is looking for 4 closer to 5

I don't think the Jets would be the hold up if Burmi would be willing to come back to Winnipeg, which according to his agent, he has not problem with. Right now he is worth more as a player to the Jets then what he would fetch in a trade. Burmi also didn't bail in the middle of a contract, so I don't really see the bad blood from the Jets. He played to the end of his contract then decided to go play somewhere else. There is a difference between the two. My guess is he comes back to the NHL, signs a 1 year deal at a modest raise over what he was making before he left, both parties can assess where he is after that and what he is worth. He would still be an RFA after that deal. Both sides can then assess his value in the NHL, and if the Jets don't want him can trade him knowing what that value is.

http://www.tsn.ca/lindros-files-lawsuit-against-former-referee-1.215863 This is an interesting read. Apparently a retired NHL Ref wrote an article for the Huffington Post that painted Lindros in a bad light, including swearing at officials and tearing up posters that were to be signed and auctioned for charities because Eric felt singled out by the ref who was doing it. Eric launched a defamation lawsuit against the ref, claiming none of it happened. Originally asking $3M, which was quickly changed to 250K. I guess there are two sides to every story, but given Lindros’ history … grow up Eric.

I would have paid the 3rd rounder straight up.

I don't think it is fair to judge Walters on draft picks where Mack had the final say, as there is no way to know what board arrangement Walters would have had, and where he was over ruled. It has come out that in 2013, Walters wanted Edem while Mack went with Mulumba. That is just one example that we know of where Walters was overruled. Walters should and will be judged on the drafts that he is the ultimate decision maker, and his name is attached to, as Mack gets judged on those when he was GM.

Well, we aren't going to trade for a D-Man, so I think Trouba (and Chiarot if he was healthy) are safe. Given the depth we have at forward, I don't think anyone new coming in will take time away from Scheifele or Lowry. You will knock guys like Galliardi and Thorburn down to the 4th line before you are in danger of taking playing time away from them.

I think this is towing the company line. If he really felt this way, why has he been so reluctant to give any of the young forwards playing time, even playing a 7th D-Man over Klingberg. Don't expect anymore deals before the deadline.

And the hits just keep on coming..... At least Defense is one area we have some depth in.

The waivers thing came from the Ryan O’Reilly situation a few years back. While he was an RFA for Colorado and holding out for a new contract, he had played a couple of games in the KHL then the Flames tendered him an offer sheet. I think the rule was that anyone from the KHL that signs with a club during the NHL season has to clear waivers on his way back to the NHL. A couple of players (like Nabakov), who signed with one team, had been picked up by different teams through this mechanism. Some people thought that because O’Reilly wasn’t the Flames property, that not only would they have to give up draft picks for signing an RFA, but could lose him under those waiver rules. No one really knows for sure if they would have lost him (the Flames had said that they would have fought this rule as it wasn’t their interpretation) as Colorado matched the offer and he didn’t go through waivers as he was Colorado’s RFA. Then in the 2013 CBA, they made this amendment / clarification: According to the 2013 CBA summary document, if the player is already signed by an NHL team when he goes to Europe, then he has to clear waivers when he returns. But if he’s unsigned (e.g. Ryan O’Reilly), then he doesn’t have to clear waivers. Such a player can sign with his team mid-season and return from Europe without having to go through waivers first.

He is an NHL RFA but under contract to the KHL. So can't sign anywhere until that contract is done.

He'd be an interesting pickup for sure. Not sure what I would be willing to give up for him. Everything I've heard though is he wants so stay in the East (this is assuming he has a say in where he goes)

When you have Chris Thorburn and T.J. Galliardi as main stays on your 3rd line right now, he'd be an upgrade that would allow you to give the 3rd line more playing time and more rest for the top 6.