Paul Maurice "State of the Union"

[Hunter368]

In some ways you can look at it as dodging some bullets.
We got Scheifele instead of RNH which I prefer.
We got Trouba instead of Yakupov which I prefer.
Okay yeah we could have had Mackinnon over Morrissey. But by not blowing the team up right away and going into the bottom we avoided two rough 1st OA's. Though not sure how much of that is Edmonton developing them or not.

Sorry but why do you think we would of drafted poorly just b/c we drafted higher? Seems odd logic to me

 

[Daximus]

Sorry but why do you think we would of drafted poorly just b/c we drafted higher? Seems odd logic to me

BPA? Right?

Well those two were BPA at the time if you draft 1st overall.

 

[Hunter368]

BPA? Right?

Well those two were BPA at the time if you draft 1st overall.

Hmmmm no Yak wasn't. RNH isn't a bad player, Yak is.

Either way when you draft you choose who you pick you're not forced to pick a certain player.

Odd argument

 

[Analyst365]

You've really misrepresented the context and the nature of Chevy's answer.

Folks can go back and listen for themselves.... http://illegalcurve.com/2015/04/24/winnipeg-jets-gm-kevin-cheveldayoff-end-of-season-press-conference-3/

Chevy was asked directly whether with free agency he was going to keep the group together.

His answer was quite guarded. He said that he needed to meet with the players and discuss with management. He did say "you know I like this group".

He said he'd like to "keep as much of the group together as he can", but "obviously there's going to be some change given the amount of players and transitions that we've made plus we have some guys in the organization that could be knocking on the door. But to put a number on who or what yet, there's still a lot of work that goes in, but you know I like the group and if we can keep a good portion together, that's important".

Later in answering a specific question about Ladd and Buff, he actually started by saying that they needed to analyze things, including the future salary cap, but then did say that he would like to try to keep those guys and the group together. But in retrospect, I think it's obvious that he was already contemplating the possibility of not signing both of them, while keeping open a positive atmosphere for negotiations.

So I've mis-represented Chevy's comments, but you've read his mind perfectly.

 

[Daximus]

Hmmmm no Yak wasn't. RNH isn't a bad player, Yak is.

Either way when you draft you choose who you pick you're not forced to pick a certain player.

Odd argument

So you think the Jets would have taken Scheif and Trouba with those respective years first overall picks!? This board would have erupted in fury. Hindsight is 20/20 and neither Scheif nor Trouba were even in back alley conversations for 1st overall pick those years.
2012 draft was between Yak and Murray both of whom are worse than Trouba IMO.
I'm just saying we still did well from those spots.
You can hate on Chevy all you want but he's gotten us the young players we have. Just because we did a full scale rebuild with another GM doesn't mean we have any better of a prospect pool.
We are were we are because of Chevy and absolutely no one else. So as bad as he's done he deserves just as much credit if not more for getting us the players we have.

 

[DK59]

So you think the Jets would have taken Scheif and Trouba with those respective years first overall picks!? This board would have erupted in fury. Hindsight is 20/20 and neither Scheif nor Trouba were even in back alley conversations for 1st overall pick those years.
2012 draft was between Yak and Murray both of whom are worse than Trouba IMO.
I'm just saying we still did well from those spots.
You can hate on Chevy all you want but he's gotten us the young players we have. Just because we did a full scale rebuild with another GM doesn't mean we have any better of a prospect pool.
We are were we are because of Chevy and absolutely no one else. So as bad as he's done he deserves just as much credit if not more for getting us the players we have.

Yes our collection of first round picks are looking really good right now and with the exception of last year it is hard to imagine us doing any better if we had been drafting in higher positions in those years. Now we were of course the proud beneficiary of a couple of really good players dropping to us but all a team can do is take advantage of those kind of fortuitous opportunities when they present themselves.

 

[Whileee]

So I've mis-represented Chevy's comments, but you've read his mind perfectly.

Nah, I just listened to what he said. I posted the link so others can judge for themselves.

 

[Puckatron 3000]

Interesting conversation regarding thE Jets draft picks. I have always thought the argument that the Jets should have tanked earlier was a defensible position. I think there are good reasons they didn't. But you can make good arguments either way.

But it is worth examining how much better our prospect pool would have been had we done so. Maybe not much. Especially considering we would have been against uber-tankers like Buffalo and Edmonton.

There are downsides of prolonged tanking. For the organization. For the fans. For the reputation of the club. Maybe these would not have been worth it if the draft picks were not significantly better.

McDavid would have been nice. Not sure we would have got him.

 

[Daximus]

Interesting conversation regarding thE Jets draft picks. I have always thought the argument that the Jets should have tanked earlier was a defensible position. I think there are good reasons they didn't. But you can make good arguments either way.

But it is worth examining how much better our prospect pool would have been had we done so. Maybe not much. Especially considering we would have been against uber-tankers like Buffalo and Edmonton.

There are downsides of prolonged taking. For the organization. For the fans. For the reputation of the club. Maybe these would not have been worth it if the draft picks were not significantly better.

McDavid would have been nice. Not sure we would have got him.

That's the one year where tanking might have been the best strategy but the competition was fierce at the bottom. Finish last guaranteed you at least Eichel. Not a bad consolation prize. Even being 2nd last guaranteed you Strome. Probably one of the best years to tank in cap era and likely will remain so for some time.

 

[CorgisPer60]

Eh. Eichel and McJesus were the top picks, and Strome/Marner are great talents, but I really like what we got last year relative to draft position.

 

[ps241]

If memory serves me correctly Ehlers wasn't moved down the line up. The Lowry shut down line attempt was getting destroyed on a nightly basis which forced Maurice to move Schiefele and Perrault up to stop the bleeding. Given that Ehlers had only had a handful of NHL games under his belt he didn't want to put that kind of pressure on him at that time imo. Unfortunately the entire bottom 6 at the time stunk which is why he ended up with Thorborn. It wasn't some grand scheme to try to stick him with Thor, it just so happened that Thor was the best of a terrible lot at that time.

Good memory and I would add two things. Stafford needed sheltering from that first shut down assignment so he was moved up with more skilled players. secondly, Thorbs was overvalued as usual and never should have been on the 3rd line with Ehlers.

 

[Digital Kid]

The Jets cannot jettison all the veterans. They need veterans who are winners to teach the new crew how to win. Edmonton did not have solid veteran winners and a culture of losing took hold.

No more than three players any year should be rookies or sophomores in my opinion else you're asking for trouble.

 

[cbcwpg]

The Jets cannot jettison all the veterans. They need veterans who are winners to teach the new crew how to win. Edmonton did not have solid veteran winners and a culture of losing took hold.

No more than three players any year should be rookies or sophomores in my opinion else you're asking for trouble.

So what veterans do the Jets have that are winners? From what I can see the Jets are keeping players like Thorburn and Stuart on the roster to teach the kids how to be off the ice in regards to training, how to be a pro, how to be good in the room, because it sure isn't because they have a history of winning anything.

 

[Evil Little]

I am pretty sure that "playing plugs along side rookies" has a lot to do with their development as pros, and how they approach the game. It has much less to do with on-ice success in the short term. There is also a social process on a team. Rookies need to make their way onto a team and be seen as earning it, especially if vets' buddies are being traded away to make room for raw rookies.

For us, these human interactions are irrelevant, because we watch the team on TV, or from the stands, or through stats. But I think good teams pay attention to the culture in a team. The culture that had developed previously (under Noel) was toxic, and there wasn't enough accountability. I think Maurice is addressing that and doesn't want the young stars that are coming in to think it's all too easy and that they don't have to take their lumps.

After the Kane trade, I took note of how much interaction in the room meant to Maurice. He talked about it so much we even got a catchphrase out of the discussion (Minnesota Mafia).

I think the long-term plan is to have someone who is good at hockey be the fun-loving joker to relax the hierarchy. For now we get Thorburn.

And I think the long-term plan is to get someone who is good at hockey to work so hard on and off the ice as to set a pace. For now, though, we get Stuart.

Given where the team is in the standings, and in its development, I have no issues with that.

 

[csk]

After the Kane trade, I took note of how much interaction in the room meant to Maurice. He talked about it so much we even got a catchphrase out of the discussion (Minnesota Mafia).

I think the long-term plan is to have someone who is good at hockey be the fun-loving joker to relax the hierarchy. For now we get Thorburn.

And I think the long-term plan is to get someone who is good at hockey to work so hard on and off the ice as to set a pace. For now, though, we get Stuart.

Given where the team is in the standings, and in its development, I have no issues with that.

This is Scheifele

 

[Daximus]

So what veterans do the Jets have that are winners? From what I can see the Jets are keeping players like Thorburn and Stuart on the roster to teach the kids how to be off the ice in regards to training, how to be a pro, how to be good in the room, because it sure isn't because they have a history of winning anything.

I think that's maybe partly why they kept some of those guys. As bad as they are on the ice. They all work hard off of it not only in the community but in TC all the way to the end of the season. They may not be good but you can't say they aren't out there trying. They never make lazy plays, everything they do is trying to win. Edmonton never had those guys. The Eberle's and Halls had to be the leaders of a bunch of kids and terrible vets with no leadership ability and it's led them to a culture of losing. Though that may change now that McDavid is likely to take over leadership role in time.
You can't ever say that the Jets have given up on any of the seasons they've had here. Sure management might but every single player out on that ice gives it there all every night regardless of how bad or injured they are. This is the only season so far where guys have actively checked out to recover aside from Kane but he's a ***** so he doesn't count.