First my Lawrie jersey is nothing, Now my EE Jersey is moot. Its going to be interesting seeing what this team can do next year. Not sure by adding Moreland and KM that they are going to be a divisional contender. may be plugging away at the WC again.
- vancity787

Fowler.

Fowler.
- BINGO!

Yeah I heard his name connected to the Jays aswell. He'd be an excellent add to the top of the order.

First my Lawrie jersey is nothing, Now my EE Jersey is moot. Its going to be interesting seeing what this team can do next year. Not sure by adding Moreland and KM that they are going to be a divisional contender. may be plugging away at the WC again.
- vancity787

Pretty sure Moreland is no longer on the Jays radar. Looks like they're only 3 mil/year apart from Fowler though.

This is very exciting.

Though I will miss EE.

First my Lawrie jersey is nothing, Now my EE Jersey is moot. Its going to be interesting seeing what this team can do next year. Not sure by adding Moreland and KM that they are going to be a divisional contender. may be plugging away at the WC again.
- vancity787

Their offense under performed overall last year imo so there's a slight chance that they might still manage to put up similar numbers in 2017 as a team even without EE.

.249 with runners in scoring position shouldn't be hard for them to beat

Pretty sure Moreland is no longer on the Jays radar. Looks like they're only 3 mil/year apart from Fowler though.

This is very exciting.

Though I will miss EE.
- mjones242

I'm not sure why the Jays were so glued to 4 year 80 mill. EE's asking price wasnt outrageous and the owners have a poopload of money. O well. I hope he go's to the NL although it doesnt sound like thats going to happen either.

Our prospect pool is practically bare bones too. Trading is going to be a little more difficult. Its win now mode for the Jays.

Their offense under performed overall last year imo so there's a slight chance that they might still manage to put up similar numbers in 2017 as a team even without EE.

.249 with runners in scoring position shouldn't be hard for them to beat
- daeth

True. But that a team reflected stat. Surely you take him out of the line-up last year and thats even lower.

True. But that a team reflected stat. Surely you take him out of the line-up last year and thats even lower.
- vancity787

I posted the team stat, I imagine EE's numbers were a lot better. EE was great.

Just saying I don't think the team will be that poop again. Hopefully. Maybe?

I posted the team stat, I imagine EE's numbers were a lot better. EE was great.

Just saying I don't think the team will be that poop again. Hopefully. Maybe?
- daeth

We'll see..... We will see.....

We'll see..... We will see.....
- vancity787

I just want to believe that 2015 was the real jays offense and 2016 was the fluke

lol

Trade Sundin
Trade Kessel
Trade JVR

The solution to getting better is to trade away your best players.
Somehow, this makes sense to people.
- Rang

Right on, imho it would be a mistake to trade him. There is a lot of talent on the wings coming, but TALENT doesn't equal 100% NHL skill. Even with Matthews, Marner and Nylander breaking through there is still a spot for JVR in the top 6. Would be a mistake to trade him. I would first try Bozak before looking at JVR at all. And IF you trade JVR you need a D back who is actually good (no Hall/Larsson jokes)

I'm not sure why the Jays were so glued to 4 year 80 mill. EE's asking price wasnt outrageous and the owners have a poopload of money. O well. I hope he go's to the NL although it doesnt sound like thats going to happen either.

Our prospect pool is practically bare bones too. Trading is going to be a little more difficult. Its win now mode for the Jays.
- vancity787

It seems pretty clear the Shapiro isn't really keen on bringing back EE. What isn't clear is why not.

Also, why the hell did they bother to sign Smoak to an extension earlier this year?

Some bizarre moves and non-moves by the Jays brass that has left me very confused.

It seems pretty clear the Shapiro isn't really keen on bringing back EE. What isn't clear is why not.

Also, why the hell did they bother to sign Smoak to an extension earlier this year?

Some bizarre moves and non-moves by the Jays brass that has left me very confused.
- mjones242

EE is getting old. They're likely guessing he's 1-2 years away from heavily regressing and $20M+ of dead weight would kill them if that happened. If other teams didn't have the same concern there'd be 30 teams bidding for him.

First my Lawrie jersey is nothing, Now my EE Jersey is moot. Its going to be interesting seeing what this team can do next year. Not sure by adding Moreland and KM that they are going to be a divisional contender. may be plugging away at the WC again.
- vancity787

Saaaaame. It's super annoying.

Did we already discuss Harper wanting $400mil???

Right on, imho it would be a mistake to trade him. There is a lot of talent on the wings coming, but TALENT doesn't equal 100% NHL skill. Even with Matthews, Marner and Nylander breaking through there is still a spot for JVR in the top 6. Would be a mistake to trade him. I would first try Bozak before looking at JVR at all. And IF you trade JVR you need a D back who is actually good (no Hall/Larsson jokes)
- DutchSenators

Bozak isn’t going to bring back the quality dman we need

Did we already discuss Harper wanting $400mil???
- markmark

after last season?? *insert 30 laughies here*

He's had one elite season. One.

Did we already discuss Harper wanting $400mil???
- markmark

EGO. Discussion over.

What a goof.

EE is getting old. They're likely guessing he's 1-2 years away from heavily regressing and $20M+ of dead weight would kill them if that happened. If other teams didn't have the same concern there'd be 30 teams bidding for him.
- daeth

Very much this.

Couple that with the Jays being desperate for a quality corner OF and an upgraded bullpen (losing Cecil didn't help matters) and there's not much $$$ left in the pot to resign him with anyway.

If we manage to sign Fowler I'm grudgingly okay with losing EE. My heart wants him to stay but my head says it's likely time to let go...

A great moment in the history of hockey.

"I want to finish my career here... so I said no to getting traded"

*Signs with Vancouver a few weeks later*.


- Scabeh

Better yet, he didn't want to waive his NTC at the deadline because he felt that joining a contender and winning the cup wouldn't be the same if he wasn't with them for the full year.

Signs with Vancouver in Dec/Jan.

(frank)er screwed us fans over !!

Better yet, he didn't want to waive his NTC at the deadline because he felt that joining a contender and winning the cup wouldn't be the same if he wasn't with them for the full year.

Signs with Vancouver in Dec/Jan.

(frank)er screwed us fans over !!
- MountAlbert

The shootout winner his first game back was a bit of a burn too.

the issue isn't short-term.

if jvr is looking for something like $6.5 over 8 years, than see ya later. The cap is limited and that money is better spent elsewhere imo.
- Tumbleweed

I've been wondering when a GM in this league will begin to routinely trade players heading into UFA status as a way of maintaining proper asset management. In business, it's been said the best policy is to sell high, yet in the NHL the steadfast policy seems to be the exact opposite.

Trading JVR this year, with a year and a half left on his contract, would make even more sense, since his value is at it's highest ever, considering the combination of on ice performance, thrifty cap hit, and remaining term.

Of course, if you're trading for someone like Shattenkirk, who is UFA at year end, it would be poor asset management, but if the principle is someone like Vatanen, with 4 years left at 25 years of age, or Trouba, who at 22 has another 4 years of cost certainty, it would be good asset management.

Making deals like that can lead to a short term regression in value, but in the long term a team should be more consistently competitive using this strategy.

I've been wondering when a GM in this league will begin to routinely trade players heading into UFA status as a way of maintaining proper asset management. In business, it's been said the best policy is to sell high, yet in the NHL the steadfast policy seems to be the exact opposite.

Trading JVR this year, with a year and a half left on his contract, would make even more sense, since his value is at it's highest ever, considering the combination of on ice performance, thrifty cap hit, and remaining term.

Of course, if you're trading for someone like Shattenkirk, who is UFA at year end, it would be poor asset management, but if the principle is someone like Vatanen, with 4 years left at 25 years of age, or Trouba, who at 22 has another 4 years of cost certainty, it would be good asset management.

Making deals like that can lead to a short term regression in value, but in the long term a team should be more consistently competitive using this strategy.
- The Shrike

Is it though?

Or is it just making a trade in sake of making a trade for a defensmen.

I've been wondering when a GM in this league will begin to routinely trade players heading into UFA status as a way of maintaining proper asset management. In business, it's been said the best policy is to sell high, yet in the NHL the steadfast policy seems to be the exact opposite.

Trading JVR this year, with a year and a half left on his contract, would make even more sense, since his value is at it's highest ever, considering the combination of on ice performance, thrifty cap hit, and remaining term.

Of course, if you're trading for someone like Shattenkirk, who is UFA at year end, it would be poor asset management, but if the principle is someone like Vatanen, with 4 years left at 25 years of age, or Trouba, who at 22 has another 4 years of cost certainty, it would be good asset management.

Making deals like that can lead to a short term regression in value, but in the long term a team should be more consistently competitive using this strategy.
- The Shrike

yup. i think this management group is trying to take advantage of opportunities like this, but we'll see.

At the same time, if he’s willing to sign for 6 years, than it would be tough to say no to that.

If we do trade him, I wouldn’t be opposed to retaining 50% of salary to really juice up the return; like the yotes did with Yandle.

Is it though?

Or is it just making a trade in sake of making a trade for a defensmen.
- Santo_44

Depends on who the player is. GM's don't usually make this kind of deal since it puts their own job in jeopardy in the short term, and that's all they seem to care about.

Getting another defenseman who has to be protected during the expansion draft when they currently have to protect Rielly, Gardiner, and Carrick is an issue to, since a 4th one means they can protect two less forwards.

Depends on who the player is. GM's don't usually make this kind of deal since it puts their own job in jeopardy in the short term, and that's all they seem to care about.

Getting another defenseman who has to be protected during the expansion draft when they currently have to protect Rielly, Gardiner, and Carrick is an issue to, since a 4th one means they can protect two less forwards.
- The Shrike

If there is a need to protect 4 dmen, then so be it. If there is a pawn to be sacrificed, it should come from the forward group; where we have the depth.