Winnipeg Jets Prospect Thread

[Mortimer Snerd]

Interesting. Many in the media have pegged the Jets as having one of the best prospect pools in the league. Care to qualify your statement?

Scheifele, Trouba, and most recently Ehlers, have moved on from prospect status, but we still have K. Connor, Petan, Dano, Armia, and potentially Roslovic as forwards, and Morrissey on D. Scheif, Ehlers and Trouba are very much 1st line and potential top pairing guys. Are you pegging the ceiling of the rest of those prospects as bottom 6 or 3rd pairing?

Edit: I've moved my post and your post over from the Draft thread so we don't drag it OT.

I think Hunter has a point although I think he overstates it. The 3 you named I will call 'quality'. Add Connor to them. The rest are 'quantity'. Not that they are not going to be good players but they are not going to be great players.

Right now Morrissey is the only real D prospect we have. There are a few others who have some chance but he is the only one highly likely to have a successful NHL career and we don't know yet at what level he is likely to peak. Let's say 2nd pair.

All those forward prospects project as more likely bottom 6 than anything else. Connor is top 6 and Petan might be what we would call mid 6, or not. That doesn't mean that none of them will rise any higher than the 3rd line but it is what I think looks likely right now.

So for forwards we have quantity but not a lot of quality and on D we just don't have much of either.

This is not in the context of how well Chevy's D&D is producing. It is in the context of us being more in need of quality additions than quantity additions.

 

[YWGinYYZ]

@Mort: my point is that our prospect pool is still pegged as one of the best, even with some young players moving out of our prospect pool. The players I've named I believe to be more than just "quantity" - they all have a very good chance to be mid-6 players, and some have top line upside.

I think the assessment of their potential is overly negative.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

@Mort: my point is that our prospect pool is still pegged as one of the best, even with some young players moving out of our prospect pool. The players I've named I believe to be more than just "quantity" - they all have a very good chance to be mid-6 players, and some have top line upside.

I think the assessment of their potential is overly negative.

We are getting into a matter of semantics here. You seem to be taking the designation of 'quantity' as being far more negative than I mean it and more negatively than I take Hunter as meaning it too. They are still good prospects but I don't think any that I put in that category have top line potential.

The first 3 you named are quality but they are not prospects so I don't see how they fit into this discussion at all. After that the only likely 1st line player I see is Connor. Morrissey might still have a slim chance at being a 1st pair D but no more than slim. Petan has only a very slim chance at ever being a 1st line player if that. I can see 2nd pair/line for those 2 but that's about it. Dano and Armia could make 2nd line but right now bottom 6 looks more likely. Roslovic is a little hard to rate. He might have 1st line potential but 2nd is more likely. So where is the 'quality' that I am missing?

We are not talking about the 'quality' of the prospect pool as a whole but of the individual players in it. We have a quantity of players likely to make it in the NHL. That = a good prospect pool, well above average. But only 1 of them is what I would call a quality individual prospect.

 

[KingBogo]

We are getting into a matter of semantics here. You seem to be taking the designation of 'quantity' as being far more negative than I mean it and more negatively than I take Hunter as meaning it too. They are still good prospects but I don't think any that I put in that category have top line potential.

The first 3 you named are quality but they are not prospects so I don't see how they fit into this discussion at all. After that the only likely 1st line player I see is Connor. Morrissey might still have a slim chance at being a 1st pair D but no more than slim. Petan has only a very slim chance at ever being a 1st line player if that. I can see 2nd pair/line for those 2 but that's about it. Dano and Armia could make 2nd line but right now bottom 6 looks more likely. Roslovic is a little hard to rate. He might have 1st line potential but 2nd is more likely. So where is the 'quality' that I am missing?

We are not talking about the 'quality' of the prospect pool as a whole but of the individual players in it. We have a quantity of players likely to make it in the NHL. That = a good prospect pool, well above average. But only 1 of them is what I would call a quality individual prospect.

I would tend to call the guys you are mentioning as "quality". For the most part they have draft pedigree and have shown to be NHL capable. A guy finding a middle 6 role is quality in my books. Schief, Ehlers, Trouba and Connor quality is usually reserved for top 10 picks and maybe a couple lucky long shots. You ain't going to get them that often. Quantity is having a bunch of guys that have little hope of rising out of the A.

 

[YWGinYYZ]

I would tend to call the guys you are mentioning as "quality". For the most part they have draft pedigree and have shown to be NHL capable. A guy finding a middle 6 role is quality in my books. Schief, Ehlers, Trouba and Connor quality is usually reserved for top 10 picks and maybe a couple lucky long shots. You ain't going to get them that often. Quantity is having a bunch of guys that have little hope of rising out of the A.

Well said. Thanks for saving me the typing, KB.

Mort: of course this is getting into semantics. It's what drives discussion, no? If everything were cut and dried and simple, we'd have NO discussion taking place.

I presented Scheif, Trouba, and Ehlers as three who graduated from prospect status that formerly occupied the top rungs of our prospect pool. Even with them graduated, many see our prospect pool as being very strong. I agree wholeheartedly with KB that finding a middle 6 winger or a 2nd pairing D is difficult to do outside of the 1st round. We have a number of prospects that fit that billing. Will they all get there? Probably not, but they're in the conversation. That's quality, not just quantity.

Hmm. Perhaps you didn't save me all that much typing KB.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

I would tend to call the guys you are mentioning as "quality". For the most part they have draft pedigree and have shown to be NHL capable. A guy finding a middle 6 role is quality in my books. Schief, Ehlers, Trouba and Connor quality is usually reserved for top 10 picks and maybe a couple lucky long shots. You ain't going to get them that often. Quantity is having a bunch of guys that have little hope of rising out of the A.

Play along with me then. Throw out the words quality and quantity. We now have lots of good players. Do we need lots more just like them? Or do we need a few better additional players?

 

[KingBogo]

Play along with me then. Throw out the words quality and quantity. We now have lots of good players. Do we need lots more just like them? Or do we need a few better additional players?

Except getting the type of "quality" you are looking for is not an easy task. We should get someone who fits with our 1st pick. Other than that you have to give to get.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Well said. Thanks for saving me the typing, KB.

Mort: of course this is getting into semantics. It's what drives discussion, no? If everything were cut and dried and simple, we'd have NO discussion taking place.

I presented Scheif, Trouba, and Ehlers as three who graduated from prospect status that formerly occupied the top rungs of our prospect pool. Even with them graduated, many see our prospect pool as being very strong. I agree wholeheartedly with KB that finding a middle 6 winger or a 2nd pairing D is difficult to do outside of the 1st round. We have a number of prospects that fit that billing. Will they all get there? Probably not, but they're in the conversation. That's quality, not just quantity.

Hmm. Perhaps you didn't save me all that much typing KB.

Uhhh .... no. That's not what it means to get bogged down in semantics. It is semantics because we are wasting our time discussing what the words mean instead of discussing the ideas that were intended by the words.

You are still way too hung up on those 2 words. This isn't a debate about which word better describes our prospect pool. I am not saying that all we have is a large quantity of junk. It is about what do we need to add to what we have. Do we need a bunch more like Armia, Petan and Dano? Or do we need a few more like Scheifele or Trouba or better?

The meaning of the original statement was that we do not need a lot more of the same as most of our current prospects. We need only a few more like the best players we have now or even better. We don't have a large number of holes, a lot of inadequate players to replace. We have a large quantity of good players or good prospects. We need a couple of elite players. Quality.

Honestly YWG, I don't care that our prospect pool is rated head and shoulders the best the world has ever seen because that has nothing to do with the issue here. The point is that our NHL roster now has enough quantity to have a decent player for the position occupying every position on the 23 man roster with the possible exception of backup goalie. But we are still not good enough to challenge for the SC. What do we need to get to the point where we could challenge for the cup? More like what we have? Or some number of better players, elite players? Some players of higher quality?

Frustrating exchange because we are not discussing what was meant by what was said. We are arguing about whether or not the right words were used or what those words mean to different people.

This relates to the idea of trading up or down. Should we trade our 1st for a couple of lower picks? Should we trade some assets to move up in the draft? Same issues. Trading down is for quantity. Trading up is for quality. I think we need quality much more than we need quantity. That statement does not demean our current prospects.

 

[YWGinYYZ]

@Mort: I'm arguing Hunter's position, not yours. If you feel I'm getting bogged down in "semantics", feel free to ignore my posts.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Except getting the type of "quality" you are looking for is not an easy task. We should get someone who fits with our 1st pick. Other than that you have to give to get.

The price is completely irrelevant to the need. We have a choice of what to pursue.

@Mort: I'm arguing Hunter's position, not yours. If you feel I'm getting bogged down in "semantics", feel free to ignore my posts.

Unless I've misunderstood, my position and Hunter's are the same.

If we leave out the semantics which do you think would do us more good, 3 more middle 6 wingers or a 1C?

I think we have a choice. Not likely that simple. 1Cs are not easilly available and if they are 3 mid 6 players probably isn't the price. But we (or Chevy) can maneuvre to get higher level players in a variety of ways.

 

[Nickel eye Heel hers]

Hasn't Schiefele stepped into a 1C role this season ?

 

[Sweech]

I don't see how anyone can criticize the "quality" of the prospects or the drafting, unless someone can point me out a prospect pool with a lot more of that "quality" than what we've got I'd say the expectation is unrealistic.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

I don't see how anyone can criticize the "quality" of the prospects or the drafting, unless someone can point me out a prospect pool with a lot more of that "quality" than what we've got I'd say the expectation is unrealistic.

Another one misunderstanding?

With not a hint of a word about what we have now, which would you rather get tomorrow, 3 middle 6 Fs or one 1st line, elite F? You can have quality or quantity but not both. Which will it be

 

[csk]

Hasn't Schiefele stepped into a 1C role this season ?

Yeah, but a few of the best teams have 2 1C's, and Little won't be around forever.

 

[Sweech]

Another one misunderstanding?

With not a hint of a word about what we have now, which would you rather get tomorrow, 3 middle 6 Fs or one 1st line, elite F? You can have quality or quantity but not both. Which will it be

Onviously a 1st liner, but I don't understand the context then. That's basically stating the absolute obvious.

Are you saying we haven't taken 1st line talents? Has someone taken more talents like that than we have?

If so many are supposedly taken what you've said out of context maybe clarify what you're saying.

 

[Sweech]

Yeah, but a few of the best teams have 2 1C's, and Little won't be around forever.

So both of those teams 1Cs will be around forever?

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Onviously a 1st liner, but I don't understand the context then. That's basically stating the absolute obvious.

Are you saying we haven't taken 1st line talents? Has someone taken more talents like that than we have?

If so many are supposedly taken what you've said out of context maybe clarify what you're saying.

No. Sigh.
It was a simple statement to the effect that we have filled our need for a large quantity of NHL calibre Fs and that in future we need to concentrate on higher quality. Period. Simple. Straightforward. Apparently easily misunderstood.

That could take any of many forms. It could be done by trading up in the draft, for one example. It could mean bundling some assets together to acquire a more skilled player for another.

There was no criticism either stated or implied of our drafting, our trading or our prospect pool. The only thing said about our roster is that we have a large quantity of good young players.

I can't say it any more clearly than that.

 

[bumblebeeman]

My take is that the Jets already have what, 17 forwards that could make the team next year, and most of them young. That is a quantity of young forwards. There are a few that may become really high quality players, but until it's proven it's not for sure.

So since they have the quantity which is where they want to be since it can be hard to predict prospects. Hopefully they get some quality players out of their quantity.

 

[thistleswamp]

Another one misunderstanding?

With not a hint of a word about what we have now, which would you rather get tomorrow, 3 middle 6 Fs or one 1st line, elite F? You can have quality or quantity but not both. Which will it be

I absolutely follow the logic here, and I think most would agree that taking the top line talent is the better option. The problem is in the context.
Relative to the rest of the league, the Jets have an excellent prospect pool, it's being thinned by graduation, but it's still quite good. There are question marks about our prospects, but so is the nature of all prospects.
Some desire that the pool have better prospects on it, but I fail to see where these prospects would materialise from. Teams aren't drafting top line kids in the 2-7th Rounds
no one knows how a prospect will turn out. Many picks in the top 10 don't go on to be 1st line/pairing players in spite of their "pedigree". That said, playing the statistics, one increases the odds of getting a premium player by drafting earlier.

For the record, I'm against trading down in the first round. If I could move up from 6-9 to a top 2 spot at the price of our top 3 picks, I'd do it.

 

[Sweech]

No. Sigh.
It was a simple statement to the effect that we have filled our need for a large quantity of NHL calibre Fs and that in future we need to concentrate on higher quality. Period. Simple. Straightforward. Apparently easily misunderstood.

That could take any of many forms. It could be done by trading up in the draft, for one example. It could mean bundling some assets together to acquire a more skilled player for another.

There was no criticism either stated or implied of our drafting, our trading or our prospect pool. The only thing said about our roster is that we have a large quantity of good young players.

I can't say it any more clearly than that.

That to me sounds blatantly obvious though.

Were you hearing people saying, "let's get a whole bunch of medium caliber players"? What brought you to go on that rant?

The whole lets package up some players and get something "elite" is an idea that permeates the entire league. Except no teams ever really tend to trade young elite prospects or picks where that level prospect is thought to be available without nearly equal "elite" level potential or ability going back in return.

The idea that "middle six" talent can be packaged up to return elite level players or top 3 picks is a myth.

 

[AWSAA]

^ Drouin could've been moved at the trade deadline. Fair to say we didn't have a centerpiece (Dman) to get a deal done, but some here didn't even want to package players like Perreault & Dano.

 

[Sweech]

^ Drouin could've been moved at the trade deadline. Fair to say we didn't have a centerpiece (Dman) to get a deal done, but some here didn't even want to package players like Perreault & Dano.

Thats the thing. Drouin is still probably going to get an elite level return himself. Not a package of those middle players.

The only way a team gets away with a package like that is if they also take some of TBs unwanted contracts like Matt Carle.

 

[csk]

So both of those teams 1Cs will be around forever?

Figure of speech, I mean that Little's reaching the end of his prime

 

[Arthur Fonzarelli]

Ivan Telegin scored a goal to help CSKA get to the game 7 of the KHL finals:



Also a nice looking hit from the game before:

He also led his team in shifts per game among forwards during the playoffs, getting 3 goals & 5 assists. After what he went through from his leg injury in Russia to his concussion in St. Johnswhich led to his fear of playing, he appears to have come along way. Just happy to hear he's playing hockey again!

http://en.khl.ru/stat/players/310/all/cska/

 

[YWGinYYZ]

At the thread post limit - continue here: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=2069501