Speculation: Jets General Rumour, Trade, Free Agent and Waiver Speculation 15-16 Part XIV

[KingBogo]

So for the Jets it only started 5 years ago since they changed management and change to rebuild, but for other teams that change management and change to rebuild it starts before that? How does that make sense?

It doesn't. People say a rebuild starts whenever they want it to start. It is all rather meaningless. If we had a 21 y/o Keith and a 20 y/o Seabrook when we inherited the team I'd say count it from whenever you want. I also think there is a big difference from hiring a new GM and a new ownership group buying a team instilling a new direction and philosophy. If Chevy got fired tomorrow and we win a cup in 3 years on the back of Scheif, Ehlers, Laine, Connor, Trouba, Morrissey and Helly. Did the rebuild start this season or the 1st year the earliest of that group of players was drafted?

 

[KingBogo]

Every GM begins with some assets. A rebuild is when you convert the older players into young assets, which is what the Jets have done as part of their draft and develop strategy.

My perspective is that Chevy and the Jets organization could have followed one of two contrasting paths. The first would have been to build around the initial core (Ladd, Little, Wheeler, Buff, Enstrom, Kane, Bogo) through trades and free agent acquisitions of key talent at the same stage of development. This would entail being aggressive in free agency and trading some of their picks and prospects to acquire developed players to supplement the core. There would have been two main problems with that approach. First, the Jets would struggle to attract top free agents to a team without a track record of success and to a new, small Canadian market. Second, the Jets had inherited almost no good prospects to trade, so they would have had to sacrifice high draft picks to trade for "now" talent. The opposite approach would have been to essentially tear down the core through trades for picks and prospects, resulting in "tanking" for higher picks. This had a few problems, too. First, they were trying to build loyalty and a brand within the NHL, and perhaps more importantly, to cultivate a good reputation across the league via their core players (like Ladd, Buff, Wheeler). Second, that approach might have alienated some of the fans that had shelled out considerably for season tickets and wanted to build some rapport with their team. Third, I think the Jets needed a bit of time to sort out what they had acquired in terms of core players from the Thrashers, particularly their younger players (e.g. Kane, Bogo, Burmi and Pavs).

I think that the Jets took a clear "draft and develop" approach, but not with a scorched earth strategy. I think they genuinely thought that perhaps the core was young enough and good enough that a few years of good drafting and developing might build a good enough team to compete. However, I think they discovered a few disappointing facts. First, Kane and Bogo (the two potential "jewels in the crown") disappointed in various ways on and off the ice. Burmistrov did, too. So, it became clear that their "core" was perhaps not as sizable or as good as might have been hoped. Pavs turned out to be mediocre or worse. I think that in their run to the playoffs they also realized that although they highly respected the remaining core (Ladd, Little, Wheeler, Buff and Enstrom), it wasn't good enough to be a long-term contender.

As a result, I think that over the past 2 years they decided to intensify the draft and develop approach, trading Kane and Bogo for Myers and futures (Armia, Lemieux, Roslovic) to fill in their prospect pool, and then decided to trade one of Ladd/Buff to create future salary cap space and further augment their core. I think they also held back on FA signings, both to preserve future cap space and perhaps with the understanding that they might take a step back in the standings, and that wasn't a terrible outcome from a draft perspective.

My own view is that I think they should have identified the deficiencies of the initial core earlier and been more aggressive at trading core players for picks. However, I think that they recouped some of that lost opportunity by trading for both picks and prospects to fill their pool (Armia, Lemieux, Roslovic, Dano, Stanley) with additional young players / prospects. When you look at the current roster in terms of age and tenure with the team, it's hard to escape the fact that there's been a major rebuild over a 5-year span. The only core players remaining from the original NHL roster are Wheeler, Little, Buff, Enstrom and Pavs. Pavs will be phased out this season, and perhaps Enstrom in the next year or two. The future of Wheeler and Little will depend on how young forwards like Ehlers, Laine, Connor and Roslovic develop.

I wanted to loop back to this post, as I thought it is one of the best I've read in a long awhile. I know surixon and a few others have also posted these more in depth and nuanced positions. I appreciate the effort to be thought provoking rather than yelling something is either good or bad. It fits closely to my views, but I must admit I have to be in a certain mood to take the time to articulate my views as fully as I'd like.

 

[Whileee]

Aside from Ladd for Dano and a 1st, the Jets haven't typically been cashing in vets for picks and prospects.

I think the Jets have been rebuilding the whole time though. Whether by design or coincidence, the team has exhibited most of the characteristics of a rebuild (with the exception of a lot of veterans-for-youth deals). They've been drafting high, avoiding pricey UFAs, keeping the payroll low and waiting for the youth to step in.

Yeah the Atlanta core was certainly flawed, but they weren't given much help. Jokinen, Miettinen, Setoguchi; out go Hainsey and Oduya, in comes Clitsome and Stu/Pardy/Harrison; Pavelec in net and Claude Noel to run the show? Good luck with that...

Kane for Armia, Lemieux and Roslovic was another. Trading Kane and Ladd yielded Armia, Lemieux, Roslovic, Dano and a 1st (Stanley). That's 5 extra prospects / picks that are basically equivalent to 1st round picks.

I think the main flaws with the Atlanta core were found in Kane, Bogo, Burmi and Pavs. They were all high picks (Pavs was a high pick for a goalie), and none of them had the requisite talent and/or character to become a core player like Scheifele or Ehlers or Trouba. Ladd, Wheeler, Little and Buff were a nice older core, but just not at the level needed to contend for an extended period of time, in my opinion, especially by the time the Jets were able to fill in with draftees like Scheif and Trouba and Hellebuyck.

 

[Whileee]

The initial response was to someone who stated that the rebuild started 8 years ago, which I vehemently disagree with. Has the franchise been in rebuild mode for 8 years? Possibly, but the counter on that rebuild has to be restarted upon the franchises move to Winnipeg, unless you think TNSE has some say in the direction it took in Atlanta. That's the crux of my argument.

The main young assets from the Atlanta days were Kane (#4 pick), Bogo (#3 pick) and Burmi (#8 pick), three very flawed young players in various ways. If they had started with Pietrangelo, OEL and Tarasenko instead, they would have had a terrific start. That's why it's so important not to muff 1st round picks, especially in the top end of the 1st round.

I think Chevy and the Jets hoped that those three would turn into franchise cornerstones, but they weren't. They had to cash in Kane and Bogo for Myers and more futures causing a reset, and Burmi remains a bottom-6 enigma.

 

[Whileee]

So for the Jets it only started 5 years ago since they changed management and change to rebuild, but for other teams that change management and change to rebuild it starts before that? How does that make sense?

This is not an expansion team. They had the bad years "before" the rebuild much like every other team that has rebuilt in the past decade. You can't just discount this then suddenly proclaim Jets are way ahead. Either you include that previous time for them all, or you just admit all teams had top assets going into the rebuild and start it when the management and direction changed.

You gotta be able to make a decision on those previous assets. Keith and Seabrook could have been traded. Bogosian, Kane, Burmistrov could have been traded.

Bogo and Kane were traded eventually. It was late, but why would you trade recent #3 and #4 overall picks if you are in a rebuild? I think the Jets hoped that both of them had a lot of growth potential with some maturity. Eventually they had to bail on them. You could say that Atlanta had started the rebuild I suppose, but they did a crappy job of it by taking three very flawed players squandering #3, #4 and #8 overall picks. Chevy ended up having to clean that up, which delayed the rebuild.

I think he could/should have recognized this sooner, but I'll refer back to the snafu with Noel. His relationship with the team was toxic, and Chevy didn't trust him to assess the roster. Chevy was very explicit in saying that he brought in an experienced coach like Maurice to help him assess the roster. I'm pretty sure that he wanted to see if Kane and Bogo could be reclaimed, among other personnel decisions. Hiring Noel was a big mistake in retrospect, but mostly because the team's leadership tuned him out and Chevy didn't really trust his player evaluation and usage. A more experienced GM who hadn't been handed his coach by the owners would likely have played a more sure hand with that. The underlying issue remains - the Thrashers really squandered their initiation of the rebuild by selecting flawed core young players.

 

[Whileee]

I wanted to loop back to this post, as I thought it is one of the best I've read in a long awhile. I know surixon and a few others have also posted these more in depth and nuanced positions. I appreciate the effort to be thought provoking rather than yelling something is either good or bad. It fits closely to my views, but I must admit I have to be in a certain mood to take the time to articulate my views as fully as I'd like.

Thanks, KB. It's all a hypothesis, of course. I think the Jets had a real dilemma with Kane and Bogo, which delayed more decisive work on the rebuild.

I think the Jets could have been a bit faster in the rebuild, but realistically I don't think that they are that behind schedule, all things considered. Their first pick (Scheifele) is just coming into a dominant position. Having to dump Kane and Bogo meant going to an even younger generation. Getting Laine makes that a fortuitous and wonderful combination.

 

[Daximus]

Thanks, KB. It's all a hypothesis, of course. I think the Jets had a real dilemma with Kane and Bogo, which delayed more decisive work on the rebuild.

I think the Jets could have been a bit faster in the rebuild, but realistically I don't think that they are that behind schedule, all things considered. Their first pick (Scheifele) is just coming into a dominant position. Having to dump Kane and Bogo meant going to an even younger generation. Getting Laine makes that a fortuitous and wonderful combination.

Fully agree and excellent post above that KingBogo quoted Whileee. I think that is exactly how it played out. Seems to have worked out quite well to get us to where we are now. I do still think that Chevy and Co. get a little bit to much credit in the draft department when it comes to landing guys like Ehlers, Connor and Laine. The rest remains to be seen. If Scheif continues to develop well we could very well have a contender on our hands in a few years.

 

[voyageur]

Kane for Armia, Lemieux and Roslovic was another. Trading Kane and Ladd yielded Armia, Lemieux, Roslovic, Dano and a 1st (Stanley). That's 5 extra prospects / picks that are basically equivalent to 1st round picks.

I think the main flaws with the Atlanta core were found in Kane, Bogo, Burmi and Pavs. They were all high picks (Pavs was a high pick for a goalie), and none of them had the requisite talent and/or character to become a core player like Scheifele or Ehlers or Trouba. Ladd, Wheeler, Little and Buff were a nice older core, but just not at the level needed to contend for an extended period of time, in my opinion, especially by the time the Jets were able to fill in with draftees like Scheif and Trouba and Hellebuyck.

What is missing in this discourse is that every 1st rd pick of Atlanta was put on the team instantly, because the organization was poor in depth. Thus development was hindered, and the teenagers making millions were not properly insulated either, which may have contributed to their "character," though Dudley made several positive steps in his one year. We changed that by letting Scheifele finish his junior career giving him time to physically mature. Lowry was given a full year in the minors to develop his game, particularly defensively. Trouba made it at 19. Morrissey was given a full year to develop in the minors. Ehlers another year to bulk up. Helleybuyck has been developed without rushing him. And we still made mistakes. Petan should have started in the minors last year. We have drafted considerably better than Waddell did too, especially in later rounds, and not traded away picks, which has deepened the talent pool.

 

[KingBogo]

Fully agree and excellent post above that KingBogo quoted Whileee. I think that is exactly how it played out. Seems to have worked out quite well to get us to where we are now. I do still think that Chevy and Co. get a little bit to much credit in the draft department when it comes to landing guys like Ehlers, Connor and Laine. The rest remains to be seen. If Scheif continues to develop well we could very well have a contender on our hands in a few years.

I'll give you that Dax. But on the flip side IMO Chevy doesn't get enough credit for how while he has handled some difficult situations. I thought the return he managed to get for Kane & Bogo under some very unique circumstances was exceptional. I also thought that his handling of Ladd and Buff's pending UFA status was very nicely done. Coming out the other end with Buff signed on a 5 year deal and exchanging Ladd for Dano and a 1st was ideal.

But when I step back and look at the big picture I'm very happy where this team is. IMO at least the amount of really good young talent being assembled (Scheif, Trouba, Ehlers, Laine, Connor, Morrissey, Roslovic, Dano, Helly etc) combined with a nice group of vets (Buff, Wheeler, MP, Little, Myers, Toby) puts us in a very nice position to quickly rise up and soon compete with the top teams.

Anyway I'm going to end on an optimistic note. I'm heading out to the lake later this morning for a couple weeks vacation time with the Family. Stay pretty much off the grid out there. No TV, no phone, no internet and spotty cell service unless I walk out to the main road. On the flip side I can fish from my front yard, I have 2 large decks, a full beer fridge and a well stocked cabinet of fine wine

 

[voyageur]

There is a lot to respond to here, but the biggest is somehow equating TNSE in 2016 to the Jets of the mid 90's and the ownership problems of that time. First off TNSE is a large and profitable company that goes far beyond the Jets who happen to be owed by very wealthy individuals, one with extreme wealth. Not only do they own both professional hockey teams in the city they own the building they play out of which is a also very busy venue for a wide range of entertainment options on regular bases. They have wrung the very favorable tax concessions from the city and province that only they very powerful can manage. The province was even so kind to build them a mini casino out the back door that funnels money into there pocket. TNSE are are now in the process of spending well over a $1/2 billion on an office tower/hotel/retail space down the street attached to an expanded convention centre.

After the last CBA was signed Chipman went on record saying the Jets themselves can be profitable spending to the cap under the current arrangement. Not being a cap team to date is more about long term asset management. That is being to sign their own players as necessary rather than chasing UFA's. Recent contracts to date would support this (Buff, MP, Scheif). Now somehow the TNSE is going to tarnish their brand by selling off top young players for pennies on the dollar.

Maybe Trouba doesn't want to be here, but if that is the case Chevy will turn him into an equally valuable player even if it takes the length of a bridge contact to do so. As players like Ehlers, Laine and Connor come due TNSE will sign them as well if they are willing to commit to the organization like Little, Wheeler, Buff, MP, Scheif etc. This team will be a cap team before you know it by the very nature of the young talent they have accumulated.

And how fortunate for TNSE should see their young team achieve contender status and long playoff runs to coincide with the completion all of their other investments in downtown Winnipeg.

I don't even want to talk about playing Matthias on the second over Laine and that somehow Dano is the weak link that needs to be on the Moose.

I put Matthias with Little because I think Little is go to be our go to RH defensive centre this year. It is alot harder for Ehlers-Scheif-Wheeler to score goals starting 200 feet from their net. Matthias is a good defensive player, and outstanding skater. I would like to develop some chemistry between him and Little, which could also be a top PK pairing. He is capable of scoring 20 if used right.

I go to the memory bank for Perrault-Lowry remembering that they were two thirds of one of our best lines down the stretch in our playoff run, and appearance in the playoffs against the Ducks. Is Laine not a better player than Stempniak, and is a 3rd line with two strong defensive players, one our best passer, the other our most physical forward a good way to get 3 line production and shelter the young kid somewhat, in terms of matchups? I find it funny that alot of people want to build a skilled team for the playoffs, but forget who was actually good for us in our playoff run, i.e Lowry, Perrault, Stuart. And who was not so good.

Petan-Copp-Armia worked last year, would give us 4 solid lines. Copp and Armia can kill penalties. Petan has potential to be a PP ace. Peluso or Thorburn can take Petan's spot if we need to play a more physical game. I suspect that Burmi will probably take Petan's spot if he is not traded, as he is able to contribute to both special teams (we saw him being used on the half wall of the PP at the end of the year, and he is a good passer, he can also kill penalties, move up the lineup, with Perrault, for example, though I think his deficiencies in the circle ensure he will not be a centre for us).

What does Dano really do that makes him so important? He does not factor into special teams, and try to put him into the lineup with that in mind.

I think financial realities dictate that if Trouba signs, especially long term, someone has to go.

I would suggest Enstrom otherwise with the intent of giving us more youth on the backend.

My most coveted prospect would be Hayden Fleury. I was impressed the way he physically dominated Nolan Patrick in the Memorial Cup. That's against arguably the best player in the 2017 draft.

Enstrom would be a nice fit on the Canes, with their Swedish contingent and lack ofveteran leadership. I also think this is their final year in Raleigh before they move to Quebec. There would be irony in going to another team moving.

What do you think of Enstrom, Lemieux or Dano, our 2nd in 2017 and another prospect (Phillips?) for Fleury, and Jay MC Clement, a salary in return, face off ace, PKer, and guy who Maurice coached (could be demoted to the Moose and would put internal pressure on Copp)? We save money to sign Trouba comfortably.

We thus only have to protect only 3 d in the expansion draft, protecting our forward core.

We run a d-corps of

Trouba-Buff
Morrissey-Myers
Stuart/Chiarot-Postma

1st unit PK is first pairing and whichever of Stuart/Chiarot is more effective with Myers on the 2nd.

Fleury is developed and battles Morrissey for a roster spot.

In 2 years we have a defense of Buff, Trouba, Myers, Fleury, Morrissey, and Stanley. That's solid.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Every GM begins with some assets. A rebuild is when you convert the older players into young assets, which is what the Jets have done as part of their draft and develop strategy.

My perspective is that Chevy and the Jets organization could have followed one of two contrasting paths. The first would have been to build around the initial core (Ladd, Little, Wheeler, Buff, Enstrom, Kane, Bogo) through trades and free agent acquisitions of key talent at the same stage of development. This would entail being aggressive in free agency and trading some of their picks and prospects to acquire developed players to supplement the core. There would have been two main problems with that approach. First, the Jets would struggle to attract top free agents to a team without a track record of success and to a new, small Canadian market. Second, the Jets had inherited almost no good prospects to trade, so they would have had to sacrifice high draft picks to trade for "now" talent. The opposite approach would have been to essentially tear down the core through trades for picks and prospects, resulting in "tanking" for higher picks. This had a few problems, too. First, they were trying to build loyalty and a brand within the NHL, and perhaps more importantly, to cultivate a good reputation across the league via their core players (like Ladd, Buff, Wheeler). Second, that approach might have alienated some of the fans that had shelled out considerably for season tickets and wanted to build some rapport with their team. Third, I think the Jets needed a bit of time to sort out what they had acquired in terms of core players from the Thrashers, particularly their younger players (e.g. Kane, Bogo, Burmi and Pavs).

I think that the Jets took a clear "draft and develop" approach, but not with a scorched earth strategy. I think they genuinely thought that perhaps the core was young enough and good enough that a few years of good drafting and developing might build a good enough team to compete. However, I think they discovered a few disappointing facts. First, Kane and Bogo (the two potential "jewels in the crown") disappointed in various ways on and off the ice. Burmistrov did, too. So, it became clear that their "core" was perhaps not as sizable or as good as might have been hoped. Pavs turned out to be mediocre or worse. I think that in their run to the playoffs they also realized that although they highly respected the remaining core (Ladd, Little, Wheeler, Buff and Enstrom), it wasn't good enough to be a long-term contender.

As a result, I think that over the past 2 years they decided to intensify the draft and develop approach, trading Kane and Bogo for Myers and futures (Armia, Lemieux, Roslovic) to fill in their prospect pool, and then decided to trade one of Ladd/Buff to create future salary cap space and further augment their core. I think they also held back on FA signings, both to preserve future cap space and perhaps with the understanding that they might take a step back in the standings, and that wasn't a terrible outcome from a draft perspective.

My own view is that I think they should have identified the deficiencies of the initial core earlier and been more aggressive at trading core players for picks. However, I think that they recouped some of that lost opportunity by trading for both picks and prospects to fill their pool (Armia, Lemieux, Roslovic, Dano, Stanley) with additional young players / prospects. When you look at the current roster in terms of age and tenure with the team, it's hard to escape the fact that there's been a major rebuild over a 5-year span. The only core players remaining from the original NHL roster are Wheeler, Little, Buff, Enstrom and Pavs. Pavs will be phased out this season, and perhaps Enstrom in the next year or two. The future of Wheeler and Little will depend on how young forwards like Ehlers, Laine, Connor and Roslovic develop.

I think that's a good analysis Whileee but I'm not sure what your conclusion is relative to this conversation. Are you saying that The Jets are 2 years into a rebuild rather than 5 or 8?

'07, Thrashers only playoff team. Out in 4 games then plunge to the bottom. Go into rebuild mode. Exactly when could be subject to debate. Draft 3, 4, 8, 7 (Jets) in successive years. Acquire Ladd, Buff, Wheeler, Stuart prior to or during the '11 season.

I think the argument could be made that they were a rebuilt core supplemented by those 4 top 10 picks coming up. There were finishing touches to be put on it and it didn't turn out to be successful but it could be called 1 rebuild.

The Jets basically ran with it for 4 years, tinkering with it, trying to put those finishing touches on it. Like the Thrashers before them they made the playoffs once and were swept in 4. Plunge to the bottom and start a rebuild. There is one crucial difference here. During those 4 years the Jets had built a supporting system stocked with potentially good players which they added to in drafts 5 & 6.

The above is obviously a simplistic summary. I'm just trying to outline an alternative view. The operation of a hockey team is an evolutionary *buzzword alert* process. There are not necessarily precise beginnings and endings to things like rebuilds.

The Jets certainly appeared to take a sharp turn after the playoff sweep. During the later part of that season and going into the playoffs the mood was pretty clearly optimistic. Not just for the end of that season and the following playoff but for the following seasons as well. It felt very much like we had arrived.

I expected that team to be kept together as much as possible with a gradual process of feeding our prospects into the team 1 by 1. This would improve on that quickly eliminated PO team and replace players as they aged out. Instead we got a switch to a youth movement. So now we are in rebuild #2.

In this scenario the Kane/Bogo trade was just part of operating the existing team. Kane and Bogo were replaced in the short term with Myers and Stafford. Different but not really less. Some more advanced futures came with them that would be a part of that process of feeding young players in slowly to augment the existing core and replace aging vets. Coincidentally they added to the prospect pool that would form the basis of the second core.

Management assessed the team that was swept by the Ducks and decided at that point to rebuild using the pool of prospects + the young players recently added + more draft picks + what other assets could be acquired by moving Ladd (so far). There may or may not be additions to come.

At any rate, however you choose to characterize the preceding several years there did appear to be a sharp change in direction after that playoff sweep. It certainly appears to me to have been a change in plan rather than a continuation of a master plan created and followed from the beginning of Jets 2.0.

 

[DeepFrickinValue]

Being in southeast likely impacted rebuild. Jets had legitimate shot for playoffs first 2 seasons due to weak division.

 

[Whileee]

I think that's a good analysis Whileee but I'm not sure what your conclusion is relative to this conversation. Are you saying that The Jets are 2 years into a rebuild rather than 5 or 8?

'07, Thrashers only playoff team. Out in 4 games then plunge to the bottom. Go into rebuild mode. Exactly when could be subject to debate. Draft 3, 4, 8, 7 (Jets) in successive years. Acquire Ladd, Buff, Wheeler, Stuart prior to or during the '11 season.

I think the argument could be made that they were a rebuilt core supplemented by those 4 top 10 picks coming up. There were finishing touches to be put on it and it didn't turn out to be successful but it could be called 1 rebuild.

The Jets basically ran with it for 4 years, tinkering with it, trying to put those finishing touches on it. Like the Thrashers before them they made the playoffs once and were swept in 4. Plunge to the bottom and start a rebuild. There is one crucial difference here. During those 4 years the Jets had built a supporting system stocked with potentially good players which they added to in drafts 5 & 6.

The above is obviously a simplistic summary. I'm just trying to outline an alternative view. The operation of a hockey team is an evolutionary *buzzword alert* process. There are not necessarily precise beginnings and endings to things like rebuilds.

The Jets certainly appeared to take a sharp turn after the playoff sweep. During the later part of that season and going into the playoffs the mood was pretty clearly optimistic. Not just for the end of that season and the following playoff but for the following seasons as well. It felt very much like we had arrived.

I expected that team to be kept together as much as possible with a gradual process of feeding our prospects into the team 1 by 1. This would improve on that quickly eliminated PO team and replace players as they aged out. Instead we got a switch to a youth movement. So now we are in rebuild #2.

In this scenario the Kane/Bogo trade was just part of operating the existing team. Kane and Bogo were replaced in the short term with Myers and Stafford. Different but not really less. Some more advanced futures came with them that would be a part of that process of feeding young players in slowly to augment the existing core and replace aging vets. Coincidentally they added to the prospect pool that would form the basis of the second core.

Management assessed the team that was swept by the Ducks and decided at that point to rebuild using the pool of prospects + the young players recently added + more draft picks + what other assets could be acquired by moving Ladd (so far). There may or may not be additions to come.

At any rate, however you choose to characterize the preceding several years there did appear to be a sharp change in direction after that playoff sweep. It certainly appears to me to have been a change in plan rather than a continuation of a master plan created and followed from the beginning of Jets 2.0.

I think the Thrashers started a bit of a rebuild a few years earlier, but it was a bit of a disaster due to terrible drafting. They had 25 picks over 3 years, including #3, #4 and #8, but failed to yield one core front-line player and without building any prospect depth. Chevy probably hoped that Kane would become a top forward, Bogo a core top pairing D, and Burmistrov a top6 forward. He could have supplemented the core with his own drafting, but Kane and Bogo and Burmistrov all disappointed and there was little of value in the prospect pool.

So, I think Chevy had to adjust a bit, going into a deeper rebuild by trading Kane and Bogo and then his captain. I wish he had taken more decisive earlier, but am glad with how he transitioned, supported by good scouting and drafting.

 

[Daximus]

I'll give you that Dax. But on the flip side IMO Chevy doesn't get enough credit for how while he has handled some difficult situations. I thought the return he managed to get for Kane & Bogo under some very unique circumstances was exceptional. I also thought that his handling of Ladd and Buff's pending UFA status was very nicely done. Coming out the other end with Buff signed on a 5 year deal and exchanging Ladd for Dano and a 1st was ideal.

But when I step back and look at the big picture I'm very happy where this team is. IMO at least the amount of really good young talent being assembled (Scheif, Trouba, Ehlers, Laine, Connor, Morrissey, Roslovic, Dano, Helly etc) combined with a nice group of vets (Buff, Wheeler, MP, Little, Myers, Toby) puts us in a very nice position to quickly rise up and soon compete with the top teams.

Anyway I'm going to end on an optimistic note. I'm heading out to the lake later this morning for a couple weeks vacation time with the Family. Stay pretty much off the grid out there. No TV, no phone, no internet and spotty cell service unless I walk out to the main road. On the flip side I can fish from my front yard, I have 2 large decks, a full beer fridge and a well stocked cabinet of fine wine

I'd have to agree 100%. The only bad trade Chevy has really ever had is the Setoguchi one. He has done extremely well both when his hand is forced and when it isn't. All in all I don't think any of us can be mad about where we are right now. I'd take this road all over again if it meant we have the players and identity we do now. We are in for some incredibly entertaining and skilled hockey, we're going to be absolutely spoiled.

Enjoy your vacation time KB! Being off the grid can be so relaxing, especially if you have a well stocked beer fridge. I just got back from a week and a half in the Okanagan and I have to say I'm not entirely to thrilled about being back in the prairies but I' suppose I'll survive until my next trip in a few weeks.

 

[Daximus]

I think the Thrashers started a bit of a rebuild a few years earlier, but it was a bit of a disaster due to terrible drafting. They had 25 picks over 3 years, including #3, #4 and #8, but failed to yield one core front-line player and without building any prospect depth. Chevy probably hoped that Kane would become a top forward, Bogo a core top pairing D, and Burmistrov a top6 forward. He could have supplemented the core with his own drafting, but Kane and Bogo and Burmistrov all disappointed and there was little of value in the prospect pool.

So, I think Chevy had to adjust a bit, going into a deeper rebuild by trading Kane and Bogo and then his captain. I wish he had taken more decisive earlier, but am glad with how he transitioned, supported by good scouting and drafting.

Not only that but he managed to do it while still icing a somewhat competitive team. If he went full scorched earth he may have lost some fans in the process. But they iced a team that was just competitive enough that they could stay in the hunt all while adding through trades and the draft.

 

[ps241]

Anyway I'm going to end on an optimistic note. I'm heading out to the lake later this morning for a couple weeks vacation time with the Family. Stay pretty much off the grid out there. No TV, no phone, no internet and spotty cell service unless I walk out to the main road. On the flip side I can fish from my front yard, I have 2 large decks, a full beer fridge and a well stocked cabinet of fine wine

Have a great trip there is something spiritual about 2 weeks at the lake!

 

[Grind]

If we'd supplemented the beginning core with players like stempniak, tilusty, etc as opposed to glass and thorburn from day one and had a moderate goal tender the "core" would have been good enough to be a playoff team every single season.

Now, that doesn't mean that would have been the best decision as that would mean we'd be a "ok playoff team to good/strong playoff team" at this point with a very definite timeline of aging out within five years.

Instead we've got middling success and a very bright future.

I just will never agree that the "core" was weak. The core was always string enough, it just never got a strong supporting caste and a goal tender.

But thats been covered and analyzed 100 times over.

Ive seen enough in depth analysis and data to confirm that this is true.

But I do agree that if we had "made that team" back NB IU n 11 and 12 it is would mean no trouba, no, ehlers, no dano and no Laine.

In hindsight im pretty ok with the road we took

 

[Whileee]

If we'd supplemented the beginning core with players like stempniak, tilusty, etc as opposed to glass and thorburn from day one and had a moderate goal tender the "core" would have been good enough to be a playoff team every single season.

Now, that doesn't mean that would have been the best decision as that would mean we'd be a "ok playoff team to good/strong playoff team" at this point with a very definite timeline of aging out within five years.

Instead we've got middling success and a very bright future.

I just will never agree that the "core" was weak. The core was always string enough, it just never got a strong supporting caste and a goal tender.

But thats been covered and analyzed 100 times over.

Ive seen enough in depth analysis and data to confirm that this is true.

But I do agree that if we had "made that team" back NB IU n 11 and 12 it is would mean no trouba, no, ehlers, no dano and no Laine.

In hindsight im pretty ok with the road we took

They did supplement the core with players like that and had good goaltending and they reached 99 points and a first round sweep.

Two things seem clear. First, the young core was seriously flawed - Kane, Bogo and Burmistrov. Second, Chevy and Maurice didn't think the older core was good enough to compete going forward, so they accelerated the youth movement, included trading their captain.

We can debate their assessment, but I think that explains their approach. The results are pending, but I think there's reason for optimism, mostly because they haven't taken many missteps in drafting or key trades.

 

[Grind]

Agreed that that was their approach. Agree that the young cores was a mixed bag at this point (wether or not that was destiny or misdevelopment by atlanta and the jets).

That season is exactly my point. But, with an actual goaltender, not a good goaltending mirage for one season, we make the playoffs 2 more years on top of that PLUS we don't get swept in the first round.

How much would that have changed their assessment of the older core (which I do disagree with)?

We would be in a very different position with a very different opinion of our current team.

Rather then a team that looks built for a very bright and long future we'd think we had a team that was just that one piece away from winning a cup or two in the next few years.

Again, I'm pretty ok with where we are, but I'd also be ok having a true contending team right now.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

The initial response was to someone who stated that the rebuild started 8 years ago, which I vehemently disagree with. Has the franchise been in rebuild mode for 8 years? Possibly, but the counter on that rebuild has to be restarted upon the franchises move to Winnipeg, unless you think TNSE has some say in the direction it took in Atlanta. That's the crux of my argument.

Yes the franchise has been in rebuild mode for 8 years. Yes there was some sort of reset (I said reboot earlier) when TNSE took over. Same rebuild mode, new team of rebuilders. I noticed your disagreement was vehement. My agreement is equally vehement. But like I said, different planets. We are looking at the same thing from 2 very different angles.

There is some similarity to the discussion about honouring the Thrashers history at the heritage classic. You acknowledge the existence of a pre-TNSE rebuild. You just don't give a rats patoot about it. I feel the same way about team records pre-Jets. I can see that point. In fact I only take exception to it because it seems to imply that TNSE started like an expansion team, with practically nothing. The prospect pipeline was completely empty but that is because the prospects were rushed into the NHL. They were still valuable assets, just not classified as prospects anymore. We also inherited a pretty good core of veteran players that no expansion team would have had nor would a team that had just gone through the tear down phase.

Whileee's post has got me thinking a little deeper about this. Management makes strategic plans. These plans change with events. It is not always easy to pinpoint when a rebuild begins. It may be even harder to pin down when it ends. I think that as fans we try to fit these things into nice neat rows of nice neat boxes but the reality is not managed to fit our preconceived ideas or wishes.

I have long thought that Chevy assessed what he inherited and judged it to be sufficient to build a contender on. Take the veterans, Ladd, Wheeler, Little, Buff etc, add to them a 3rd OA pick top pair, big, mean, skilled D, a 4th OA 30-40 goal, physically assertive, hard on the puck LW, a shifty 2C plus what TNSE could add through the draft starting with Scheif and Trouba and I think he saw a contender. But first Burmi disappointed and left, then Kane and Bogo failed to live up to expectations and had to be moved and finally he didn't like what he saw in the lone PO appearance so that plan had to be changed. Bring on the youth movement, a dive to the bottom to reload and lets call it a whole new rebuild but quicker because of the better foundation. Oh and I forgot to mention goaltending. At the start he thought he had a good young goaltender. We all know how that worked out.

So, it may be more accurate to say that we are really in only the 2nd year of a mini rebuild rather than the 8th, or 5th year of a full on rebuild. The prospect pool though is entering the 6th year of its own rebuild and that was from scratch.

 

[Grind]

I like that take Morty. I agree very strongly.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

I definitely have to agree with Gin on this discussion. No way the rebuild started 8 years ago. By what measure is that the magic starting point 8 years ago? Because if Atlanta was rebuilding they were doing it by a unknown means. Let's rebuild by blowing our 1st round picks and without bothering to acquire any prospects with potential after that. And when was Atlanta ever built in the 1st place? I'd argue if you are going back to the Atlanta days the rebuild started in 1999. If we are going by the season they made they playoffs and got swept, well guess what we made the playoffs 1 year ago and got swept. So it is arbitrarily either 17 years ago, 8 years ago, 5 years ago or 1 year ago. IMO the only fair starting point is when TNSE bought the team, because it is only at that point is there a clear and decisive change in the long term vision and how the team was operated.

If a team rebuilds badly it is not rebuilding? So the Oilers haven't been in rebuild mode since (fill in whatever year you like )? For the most simplistic definition how about anytime a team picks 3&4 in b2b years without the lottery being involved they are in rebuild mode whether they acknowledge it or not.

I conceded a TNSE reboot in my (I think 1st) earlier post on this subject. Since your post above I have made a couple of long posts that give my position as clearly as I can make it.

Bard has made a good analogy.

 

[bumblebeeman]

It's fun to think what would have happened with a Dudley led Jets franchise. Probably more short term success but less long term success but who knows. He's definitely way more aggressive then Chevy (but who isnt) which would have been fun.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

You're free to reset your own clock any time you want. I don't know enough about the Thrashers to say when or if they were doing a rebuild, apart from my earlier caveat about "under new management."

As for the Jets 2.0, I don't think there was any kind of real rebuild happening in the first three or four years. Chevy held onto the core and near core, which would not have been the case in a rebuild. He tried to sign big-name UFAs, Stastny among them, which he would not have done if he was dedicating a few years to a rebuild. The year before last he traded Kane, but that wasn't rebuild related, that was forced on him. Bogo might be a different case; that might verge on a rebuild sort of thing, or maybe off-ice or injury issues, which aren't rebuild related. What's left after all of that is the draft, but drafting kids does not in and of itself denote a rebuild.

So if the Thrashers were undergoing a rebuild, it seems safe to say that rebuild was put on hiatus for at least the first three years of Jets 2.0, and only resumed maybe in the Kane-trade year, but more probably in last year's tank season.

The trades that brought Ladd, Buff and Wheeler all came within Thrashers last year (June, July '10 and Feb '11). That sure has the look of a rebuild so I think at least that last year is safe to label that way.

 

[Whileee]

Agreed that that was their approach. Agree that the young cores was a mixed bag at this point (wether or not that was destiny or misdevelopment by atlanta and the jets).

That season is exactly my point. But, with an actual goaltender, not a good goaltending mirage for one season, we make the playoffs 2 more years on top of that PLUS we don't get swept in the first round.

How much would that have changed their assessment of the older core (which I do disagree with)?

We would be in a very different position with a very different opinion of our current team.

Rather then a team that looks built for a very bright and long future we'd think we had a team that was just that one piece away from winning a cup or two in the next few years.

Again, I'm pretty ok with where we are, but I'd also be ok having a true contending team right now.

The only thing I think we likely disagree on is the strength of the core, but I suppose that's been discussed enough. Bottom line for me is that unless they had top goaltending (which is not that simple to acquire) I don't think this core makes it past the first round of the playoffs unless in a very weak conference. If they did and decided to hang onto the core instead of moving to youth, I think that would have been a real mistake that would have had long-term negative consequences for the franchise. Beyond that, missing out on a couple of top ten picks (say, Ehlers and Trouba) could have been a big blow.