Prospect Info: Logan Stanley - Part III

[Weezeric]

If the jets didn't make that trade and selected Stanley at 22 and green in the second round the vitriol would be far less around here which I find strange....

 

[DoingItCoolKiwi]

If the jets didn't make that trade and selected Stanley at 22 and green in the second round the vitriol would be far less around here which I find strange....

I can't believe we traded up for him. That 2nd round pick could have been Debrincat, Kuokkanen or Dahlen

 

[ps241]

The first challenge i had was I loved McAvoy, Fabbro, and Chychrun and they all toppled right before us. Felt like we missed the tier so why trade up but TNSE didn't agree. The second challenge I had was everyone but me seemed to think 6'7" was a good thing and I really didn't get that POW especially when combined with heavy feet?

It is what it is though and I have enjoyed cheering for "our" underdog now and I am looking forward to keeping an eye on his results this season.

 

[garret9]

If the jets didn't make that trade and selected Stanley at 22 and green in the second round the vitriol would be far less around here which I find strange....

Not for I... my article was on Stanley not being worth #22, as that was before the pick.

 

[Whileee]

I can't believe we traded up for him. That 2nd round pick could have been Debrincat, Kuokkanen or Dahlen

Or Laberge or Hajek or Dineen, etc.

I'm more annoyed by the selection of Stanley than the concept of moving up.

 

[garret9]

Or Laberge or Hajek or Dineen, etc.

I'm more annoyed by the selection of Stanley than the concept of moving up.

Ifs and buts, no one knows what players they would have gone for if they didn't trade up and lost Stanley.

To me, both are bad, and go hand in hand.

Paying 100 or 75 for something worth 50 no matter what:
* is still overpay
* just one is by a greater amount
* but 50 is not 0 and still has value

 

[Gm0ney]

I thought it was strange that with all the great players that just kind of fell into the Jets lap without them lifting a finger, the guy they make a deal to get is this giant, low-scoring defenseman that is exactly the type that's been traditionally overvalued by old school NHL GMs. They seemed content to let Ehlers, Trouba and Connor dangle in the wind to be picked up by anyone in front of them - whatever. But "holy Jesus if someone takes Logan Stanley ahead of us we're ****ed! Trade up! Trade UP!!!"

 

[Daximus]

I thought it was strange that with all the great players that just kind of fell into the Jets lap without them lifting a finger, the guy they make a deal to get is this giant, low-scoring defenseman that is exactly the type that's been traditionally overvalued by old school NHL GMs. They seemed content to let Ehlers, Trouba and Connor dangle in the wind to be picked up by anyone in front of them - whatever. But "holy Jesus if someone takes Logan Stanley ahead of us we're ****ed! Trade up! Trade UP!!!"

Yeah it just goes against their entire style of drafting in the first round. Maybe getting Laine made them go bonkers because the ship seems to have been righted.

 

[Whileee]

Ifs and buts, no one knows what players they would have gone for if they didn't trade up and lost Stanley.

To me, both are bad, and go hand in hand.

Paying 100 or 75 for something worth 50 no matter what:
* is still overpay
* just one is by a greater amount
* but 50 is not 0 and still has value

My point is that there is constant repetition of the fallacy that the Jets "gave up a second round pick" to move up for Stanley. It's bad enough that they picked Stanley and moved up to do it. But the price wasn't a second round pick. Not sure why that seems so hard for some to remember.

 

[Whileee]

I thought it was strange that with all the great players that just kind of fell into the Jets lap without them lifting a finger, the guy they make a deal to get is this giant, low-scoring defenseman that is exactly the type that's been traditionally overvalued by old school NHL GMs. They seemed content to let Ehlers, Trouba and Connor dangle in the wind to be picked up by anyone in front of them - whatever. But "holy Jesus if someone takes Logan Stanley ahead of us we're ****ed! Trade up! Trade UP!!!"

I think teams have a better understanding than we think about who other teams like. Moving up to take Stanley was dumb, but that doesn't mean they were stupid not to trade up in the other drafts. They might have been pretty sure that the Canucks liked Virtanen and the Canes liked Fleury. Maybe they liked a few players in 2015 that they thought would be available, such as Chabot, Roslovic, White, etc. Same with 2012... Forsberg, if Trouba was gone.

Some have suggested that the Jets didn't like much of what was left in 2016, other than taking a big swing with Stanley. Might be a big whiff, but not as big a risk if you don't like much else at that point.

 

[Gm0ney]

I think teams have a better understanding than we think about who other teams like. Moving up to take Stanley was dumb, but that doesn't mean they were stupid not to trade up in the other drafts. They might have been pretty sure that the Canucks liked Virtanen and the Canes liked Fleury. Maybe they liked a few players in 2015 that they thought would be available, such as Chabot, Roslovic, White, etc. Same with 2012... Forsberg, if Trouba was gone.

Some have suggested that the Jets didn't like much of what was left in 2016, other than taking a big swing with Stanley. Might be a big whiff, but not as big a risk if you don't like much else at that point.

It seems the Jets had Stanley ranked pretty high...a tier (or more?) above whoever else was available at that point. Well, at least it doesn't appear to have been a shift in philosophy...I mean, Hillier's first draft sure wasn't my favourite, but his 2nd one looks pretty nice at this early stage. So I'm not too concerned no matter how Stanley ultimately turns out.

 

[Daximus]

I think teams have a better understanding than we think about who other teams like. Moving up to take Stanley was dumb, but that doesn't mean they were stupid not to trade up in the other drafts. They might have been pretty sure that the Canucks liked Virtanen and the Canes liked Fleury. Maybe they liked a few players in 2015 that they thought would be available, such as Chabot, Roslovic, White, etc. Same with 2012... Forsberg, if Trouba was gone.

Some have suggested that the Jets didn't like much of what was left in 2016, other than taking a big swing with Stanley. Might be a big whiff, but not as big a risk if you don't like much else at that point.

I'm not sure what's more worse. That they didn't like anything else at that point or if they thought he was the best of the rest. Either way they both aren't very promising.

 

[garret9]

My point is that there is constant repetition of the fallacy that the Jets "gave up a second round pick" to move up for Stanley. It's bad enough that they picked Stanley and moved up to do it. But the price wasn't a second round pick. Not sure why that seems so hard for some to remember.

You are correct, the price wasn't the full value of the second round pick, but it was part of the value of the second round pick.

 

[Jets4Life]

I'm not sure what's more worse. That they didn't like anything else at that point or if they thought he was the best of the rest. Either way they both aren't very promising.

For the Jets sake, I hope it was because they didn't like anything else, and took a swing with Stanley. I wish I could stop comparing him to Boris Valabik, but I cannot.

 

[Daximus]

For the Jets sake, I hope it was because they didn't like anything else, and took a swing with Stanley. I wish I could stop comparing him to Boris Valabik, but I cannot.

My bigger question is what else could they not have liked? It's not like the rest of the crop was absolute crap.

 

[DK59]

My bigger question is what else could they not have liked? It's not like the rest of the crop was absolute crap.

One thing that has been more or less absent in this discussion over the past year or so is any kind of comments like "man how in the world could we have passed up on this or that particular player". I would guess that if we took poll on who we should have taken based on what what we knew back then (or even what we know now) there would be a lot different players coming up and very little consensus. I am sure there were players they liked that were in this group but they would likely have seen them as supporting cast players that would potentially fill roles in the bottom half of the roster.

 

[Whileee]

You are correct, the price wasn't the full value of the second round pick, but it was part of the value of the second round pick.

The value was the difference between a second and a third round pick. It's pretty straightforward, but seems to get forgotten with some regularity.

 

[Jimby]

It is really interesting going back in time and reading the poll thread for the Morrissey pick where less than half liked the pick. A lot of the comments are exactly the same as for Stanley. A "second rounder taken in the first round" etc. For some reason I kept a screen shot of the votes - very revealing

Sometimes the wisdom of HF is very wrong.

 

[truck]

My bigger question is what else could they not have liked? It's not like the rest of the crop was absolute crap.

I didn't love any of the D at that point - didn't see 1st round value. I would have stood pat, gone with a forward, then targeted Girard or Clague in round 2. I was relatively certain that one or both would be there.

EDIT

Should clarify. I would have been okay with Girard in round 1, but I didn't like the value because I thought they could get him in round 2.

 

[surixon]

It is really interesting going back in time and reading the poll thread for the Morrissey pick where less than half liked the pick. A lot of the comments are exactly the same as for Stanley. A "second rounder taken in the first round" etc. For some reason I kept a screen shot of the votes - very revealing

Sometimes the wisdom of HF is very wrong.

Well it seemed that the board warmed up on JoMo fairly quickly once more and more information on him came out. That really hasn't been the case with Stanley though.

 

[truck]

The value was the difference between a second and a third round pick. It's pretty straightforward, but seems to get forgotten with some regularity.

The historical difference in value is based on historical averages. In this particular draft, I was confident that the Jets would have a chance at landing a very good prospect in the 2nd round - specifically Girard or Clague - a prospect I thought had a better chance of success than either Green or Stanley.

 

[truck]

Well it seemed that the board warmed up on JoMo fairly quickly once more and more information on him came out. That really hasn't been the case with Stanley though.

The dominant D+1 season really helped.

 

[JetsUK]

Getting schooled by one of the fastest skaters in the game != getting schooled fairly regularly in junior, and not just this show case.

I still hope for the best for Stanley but I remain skeptical that he was remotely worth his draft position.

Of course. I was just making the point that few if any defenders go "unschooled" for long. That being said, is there any extant non-eyetest system of tracking the number of times LS gets 'schooled" our "danced" relative to his peers? Before his injury last year I watched him live several times and didn't notice this as a regular occurrence, though these were league games against his peers.

I wonder if we tend to view LS as a player more likely to experience this, so pay more attention to it than we might with another defender -- in other words, that there's a version of Buff-bias in the way we view LS and the conclusions we draw.

Again, not saying he doesn't screw up his coverage, or that he was well worth the pick and the trade-up, just querying the logic of what Aavco calls the "rollercoaster" ride of these threads. Not that logic need apply on a fan site, of course.

 

[Whileee]

The historical difference in value is based on historical averages. In this particular draft, I was confident that the Jets would have a chance at landing a very good prospect in the 2nd round - specifically Girard or Clague - a prospect I thought had a better chance of success than either Green or Stanley.

Girard, I understand.

But was Clague really a better prospect (statistically) than Green in his draft season?

Even strength points/game (draft)...

Clague 0.366
Green 0.426

Edit: For the record, I would also have liked the Jets to go for a forward in the 1st round, since I didn't really like the remaining D prospects.

 

[truck]

Girard, I understand.

But was Clague really a better prospect (statistically) than Green in his draft season?

Even strength points/game (draft)...

Clague 0.366
Green 0.426

I thought so. I also anticipated a large uptick in scoring as he took on a larger role in the absence of Provorov.