Post-Game Talk: Jets lose to the Hawks 4-1.

[Guerzy]

So your position is that the next Ken Hitchcock is out there just waiting for the Jets to call him. Who exactly is that anyways?

I could try citing you the Flyers this year - they did the "bold move" of firing Laviolette, but it doesn't seem to have helped them.

You can cherry pick an example to prove just about any point, but stats seem to show that a mid-season firing of the coach does not help.

I can't answer who the next coach is, will be, or if they will lift this team to successful days. Nor am I suggesting making a bold trade or coaching change WILL work, but at this point I see it as an avenue we'll likely have to explore. We're on a deadend road, in my opinion, and the only way to have a chance at correcting things is to begin making some changes. What is so bad about that?

St. Louis made the big trade in February of 2011 and that didn't exactly "right the ship". They fired Davis Payne in November of the next season.

It may take a couple organizational moves to turn the tide. Will it work for the Jets? maybe, maybe not. But to me, in my own personal opinions, the circumstances draw some interesting similarities to two cores who do not boast "star players", they're constructed pretty similar, in my opinion.

 

[surixon]

But they aren't analogous situations at all though. St. Louis didn't just rebuild their minor league organization when they made those moves. They made those coaching and trade moves from the standpoint of having a solid minor system behind them. They had organizational depth in other words. In fact, the two teams couldn't be any different, both now and then.

Winnipeg is currently in the process of flushing their minor league from the standpoint of moving out Thrasher picks and moving in TNSE picks, and they just freshly just built a "new" AHL team when one didn't previously exist in Thrasherville. They lack depth. St. Louis conversely made those moves with minor league depth support at that time that doesn't exist here yet. They conversely had depth.

St. Louis have in fact also since cut their AHL team and now instead farm out their prospects to Chicago, just like the Thrashers once did. They are franchises moving in diametrically opposed directions.

The two situations are not at all analogous in fact. I do applaud your attempt to draw a parallel where one doesn't exist however.

I think he is talking about them trading a struggling Eric Johnson for two good young pieces with upside. Both of which have turned into solid contributor's. I'm not sure how that has anything to do with AHL depth. The Blues only recently have been parlaying that org depth into players to take a run. I can very well see where he is drawing some parallels. We have defenseman in Buff that could likely return a couple of good assets and it might be in our best interest to do it.

I do agree with you on the point about rebuilding our development infrastructure and prospect pool. Both will need to be strong for us to be continually good.

 

[Guerzy]

The two situations are not even close. St. Louis had the organizational depth behind them to make those sort of moves, depth that doesn't exist here as of yet. I won't force my opinions on you, but I'll suggest you are seeing something that really isn't there.

So because St. Louis had "organizational depth" they could fire a coach? or trade one young player Erik Johnson, plus a conditional 1st round pick in 2011 or 2012 and Jay McClement for two other young players in Chris Stewart, Kevin Shattenkirk and a conditional 2nd round pick in 2011 or 2012.

Sure they gave up a 1st round pick, and they were in a fine position to do so given their core and system, I won't deny that, but... you really think just because of how our system is today that it should hold us back from firing Noel and/or trading Dustin Byfuglien?

I think he is talking about them trading a struggling Eric Johnson for two good young pieces with upside. Both of which have turned into solid contributor's. I'm not sure how that has anything to do with AHL depth. The Blues only recently have been parlaying that org depth into players to take a run. I can very well see where he is drawing some parallels. We have defenseman in Buff that could likely return a couple of good assets and it might be in our best interest to do it.

I do agree with you on the point about rebuilding our development infrastructure and prospect pool. Both will need to be strong for us to be continually good.

Bingo.

 

[Gm0ney]

We probably wouldn't be talking about any of this if the Jets didn't have an abysmal 9.5% conversion rate on the PP. League Average = 18%.

I know some contend that we don't have the horses to win in the West, but certainly we have enough offensive talent to keep up with the likes of Phoenix and New Jersey, right?

 

[Gump Hasek]

So because St. Louis had "organizational depth" they could fire a coach? or trade one young player Erik Johnson, plus a conditional 1st round pick in 2011 or 2012 and Jay McClement for two other young players in Chris Stewart, Kevin Shattenkirk and a conditional 2nd round pick in 2011 or 2012.

Sure they gave up a 1st round pick, and they were in a fine position to do so given their core and system, I won't deny that, but... you really think just because of how our system is today that it should hold us back from firing Noel and/or trading Dustin Byfuglien?

Bingo.

You seem to be operating under the impression that St. Louis acquired the depth that exists there by simply making a trade and coaching change. In fact, their strength comes from their depth across the board. That depth didn't just appear magically overnight but rather was in-part built from within over time.

Making a rash trade or coaching change sans that depth here, right now, however amounts to little more than shuffling the deck chairs. You'll lose something when you trade as well, FYI; the net effect won't solely be a glaring positive. You are essentially arguing for change for the sake of change... but at the end of the day are still left with near-zero depth. Hopefully our management has a better plan than that.

 

[Grind]

So because St. Louis had "organizational depth" they could fire a coach? or trade one young player Erik Johnson, plus a conditional 1st round pick in 2011 or 2012 and Jay McClement for two other young players in Chris Stewart, Kevin Shattenkirk and a conditional 2nd round pick in 2011 or 2012.

Sure they gave up a 1st round pick, and they were in a fine position to do so given their core and system, I won't deny that, but... you really think just because of how our system is today that it should hold us back from firing Noel and/or trading Dustin Byfuglien?



Bingo.

This is what i don't get.


I get where gumps coming from.

I get the whole "hey were not gonna make it so lets stay the course and develop"

the point being, there are assets in this organization that do 100% jack **** if your taking that approach. They do not help you achieve a short term goal. they do not help you achieve a long term goal.

But- they could, but were deciding not too...why? that's what I don't get.

Case and point: dustin byfuglien.

If this team is in such a bad spot for this year (and likely next year) why keep him? He is not helping us achieve a goal this year. He is not helping us achieve a goal in two years from now. It's burning an asset.

If you are of the assumption there is no way of making the playoffs/improving with this core then not trading dustin byfuglien now is analogous, IMO, to trading picks for expiring UFA's at the deadline when your already mathematically eliminated from the playoffs. It makes zero sense, under any plan!

Depending on how dire you see our situation this can extend to other players on this roster as well.


Inaction is just not an option anymore. "Staying the course" wastes assets and is piss poor management at this stage. I don't want to see change for the sake of change. I want to see change, because staying the same does not help you win longterm and it does not help you win short term. it has no benefit.

For christ sakes, a coaching change is essentially a "free" attempt at fixing one of those two things, it costs nothing! Why would anyone be against that?

Stability? Why do we want to preserve what isn't working?

 

[Guerzy]

You seem to be operating under the impression that St. Louis acquired the depth that exists there by simply making a trade and coaching change. In fact, their strength comes from their depth across the board. That depth didn't just appear magically overnight but rather was in-part built from within.

Making a trade or coaching change sans that depth here however amounts to little more than shuffling the deck chairs. You'll lose something when you trade as well, FYI; the net effect won't solely be a glaring positive. You are esentially arguing for change for the sake of change. Hopefully our management has a better plan than that.

As I said, Gump, I view the Blues' core and our core depth as very similar builds at the roots of each team.

They didn't have all of the depth today that they had during the 2010-2011 season when they began altering things.

Anyhow, for anyone with interest in this topic and subject, there is now a thread for it in which you can read the full article for those who would like to partake.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?p=73972987#post73972987

 

[surixon]

So because St. Louis had "organizational depth" they could fire a coach? or trade one young player Erik Johnson, plus a conditional 1st round pick in 2011 or 2012 and Jay McClement for two other young players in Chris Stewart, Kevin Shattenkirk and a conditional 2nd round pick in 2011 or 2012.

Sure they gave up a 1st round pick, and they were in a fine position to do so given their core and system, I won't deny that, but... you really think just because of how our system is today that it should hold us back from firing Noel and/or trading Dustin Byfuglien?



Bingo.

Just went back and looked and the Blues have graduated a total of three players to their NHL roster since the trade.

Schwartz
Taresanko
Nikitan-now on Columbus.

I'm not sure how that constitutes having superior AHL depth. It seems the one for two trade sufficiently improved their NHL depth. Sure they moved some pieces last year but they haven't done an out of the world job of producing talent the last few years.

 

[Darth Handsome*]

That game reminded me of Jets vs Oilers, circa 1985. I'm still dizzy from the flashbacks.

 

[ATLhockey437]

That game reminded me of Jets vs Oilers, circa 1985. I'm still dizzy from the flashbacks.

That game reminded me of 95% of the Thrasher games I went to at Philips Arena.

 

[Guerzy]

Just went back and looked and the Blues have graduated a total of three players to their NHL roster since the trade.

Schwartz
Taresanko
Nikitan-now on Columbus.

I'm not sure how that constitutes having superior AHL depth. It seems the one for two trade sufficiently improved their NHL depth. Sure they moved some pieces last year but they haven't done an out of the world job of producing talent the last few years.

Exactly. Sure at the time they had some depth, but to think they had extraordinary depth also isn't very accurate.

To me, the St. Louis Blues organization made critical changes to the organization when it became apparent it needed to be done. Maybe that is the case for the Jets, maybe it isn't, maybe it would work for the Jets, maybe it wouldn't. But, at the end of the day my opinion is we need to alter some things, and I view the state of our core and team as pretty comparable to that St. Louis organization at the time they decided "let's do something to help try and alter this".

 

[Grind]

You seem to be operating under the impression that St. Louis acquired the depth that exists there by simply making a trade and coaching change. In fact, their strength comes from their depth across the board. That depth didn't just appear magically overnight but rather was in-part built from within over time.

Making a rash trade or coaching change sans that depth here, right now, however amounts to little more than shuffling the deck chairs. You'll lose something when you trade as well, FYI; the net effect won't solely be a glaring positive. You are essentially arguing for change for the sake of change... but at the end of the day are still left with near-zero depth. Hopefully our management has a better plan than that.

So how has any team ever acquired depth?

if we take your statement as fact the only single way to acquire depth in the NHL is at the entry draft.

well then it would make sense to make moves that allow you to draft more players.

also what's lost with this idea: depth isn't static. "depth" expires. Depth that we have today, may not be depth we have tomorrow. And if we don't have the depth to compete today, it would be logical to move current depth for future depth.

if you need 500 apples on friday. you have 300 apples now. you get 200 given to you on friday, but 100 of your current apples will have spoiled by then. Logic dictates you trade 100 of your apples today for an extra 100 on Friday.

That is all i seek in trades. We have to decide when we want our apples.

 

[Gump Hasek]

Just went back and looked and the Blues have graduated a total of three players to their NHL roster since the trade.

Schwartz
Taresanko
Nikitan-now on Columbus.

Really? Since the trade is a meaningless metric; over time that team was built in-part from within, not just since the trade...

Reaves, Cracknell, Backes, Cole, Polak, etc, etc.

 

[Grind]

Really? Since the trade is a meaningless metric; over time that team was built in-part from within, not just since the trade...

Reaves, Cracknell, Backes, Cole, Polak, etc, etc.

EDIT: sorry gump misread your post initiially.


backes and Polack were playing significantly on that roster before the trade

in 2010 11 (the year of the EJ trade)

backes: 82 gp

Polakc : 55 GP


cracknell reeves and cole all had less then 30 gp so i suppose you could argue that they graduated since then.

thats two fourth liners and a bottom pairing D man.

Edit: I don't entirely understand why where the players on the team came from is so important. Aaaand, if it is and organziationally drafted/developed players are more valuable to an organization then those not, again, why are we not trading our "non-organizational" players for picks/prospects?

 

[Darth Handsome*]

That game reminded me of 95% of the Thrasher games I went to at Philips Arena.

I trust you've needed therapy then?

 

[Gump Hasek]

So how has any team ever acquired depth?

if we take your statement as fact the only single way to acquire depth in the NHL is at the entry draft.

well then it would make sense to make moves that allow you to draft more players.

also what's lost with this idea: depth isn't static. "depth" expires. Depth that we have today, may not be depth we have tomorrow. And if we don't have the depth to compete today, it would be logical to move current depth for future depth.

if you need 500 apples on friday. you have 300 apples now. you get 200 given to you on friday, but 100 of your current apples will have spoiled by then. Logic dictates you trade 100 of your apples today for an extra 100 on Friday.

That is all i seek in trades. We have to decide when we want our apples.

I don't quite get why you are attempting to define my position as one of no trades, when in my first post I suggested that trades were eventually likely coming regardless. What I am saying conversely is that change will likely come slower than those of your own ilk would seemingly prefer. Some want to compete right now; I'm saying they are building for later. Their time horizon is much longer than that of some of the nervous here would prefer.

 

[surixon]

Really? Since the trade is a meaningless metric; over time that team was built in-part from within, not just since the trade...

Reaves, Cracknell, Backes, Cole, Polak, etc, etc.

Not saying it wasnt. I'm just pointing out that their system wasn't some elite talent producing unit. A good portion of the Blues talent has been acquired through trade.

I'm not sure what you arguing against, all he's stating is that he'd like to move Buff to increase our NHL depth much like how St. Louis did. Maybe they were In a better position at the time but his point about adding young assets who better fit this team in the longterm is a sound one.

 

[Grind]

I don't quite get why you are attempting to define my position as one of no trades, when in my first post I suggested that trades were eventually likely coming regardless. What I am saying conversely is that change will likely come slower than those of your own ilk would seemingly prefer. Some want to compete right now; I'm saying they are building for later. Their time horizon is much longer than that of some of the nervous here would prefer.

I think there's some crossed wires here. I'm not "of the ilk" that we need to compete now. I'm of the ilk that standing motionless gets us no where. Management has to decide wether they want to "build slowly while competing" or "build quickly while maybe not competing as much".

"build slowly while competing" would mean A) while not selling the farm and waiting to acquire depth, making moves to improve the team now (as it is currently not competitive)

"build quickly" would mean moving pieces for future depth.


I apologize if i've misunderstood your stance, but you've come across that our best option is to stand still and anyone expecting changes (besides a "probably dustin byfuglien" trade) in either direction is out to lunch.

I don't need results now. I don't need a rebuild now. I need a decision one way or the other.

 

[Guerzy]

My opinion on these moves also doesn't fall under the category of "fixing us right now" and instantly making us competitive.

But, like St. Louis, I believe by making these moves it will (or at the least give us a chance) at taking steps forward for the future.

What we are doing right now is not working and will never work, in my own opinion.

 

[Gump Hasek]

Not saying it wasnt. I'm just pointing out that their system wasn't some elite talent producing unit. A good portion of the Blues talent has been acquired through trade.

I'm not sure what you arguing against, all he's stating is that he'd like to move Buff to increase our NHL depth much like how St. Louis did. Maybe they were In a better position at the time but his point about adding young assets who better fit this team in the longterm is a sound one.

I'm saying essentially that Buff is also involved in a good portion of this team's offense, that if you trade him there is also a cost, and that it is easier to effect change when you've depth to rely upon versus when you do not. Making trades for the sake of trades, right now, simply shuffles the same deck, but really doesn't change it all that much.

I'm also saying that the comparison to St. Louis is not at all analogous, despite an attempt to state it is. They had depth, the Jets do not.

 

[Romang67]

That game reminded me of 95% of the Thrasher games I went to at Philips Arena.

It reminded me of 50% of the games I went to at Philips Arena!

 

[Andy6]

I don't get the panic over losing four games to three teams that have a total of 5 regulation-time losses between them, all season. In two of the games we came as close as just about anyone has to beating those teams (and in fact we have beaten St. Louis in extra time already this year). The one time we played a slightly less elite, but still very good, team (Detroit), we trounced them. How about we wait and see how the Jets do against some non-elite teams.

 

[Grind]

I don't get the panic over losing four games to three teams that have a total of 5 regulation-time losses between them, all season. In two of the games we came as close as just about anyone has to beating those teams (and in fact we have beaten St. Louis in extra time already this year). The one time we played a slightly less elite, but still very good, team (Detroit), we trounced them. How about we wait and see how the Jets do against some non-elite teams.

This is something I need to remind myself of.


We started playing better about 6 games ago. We then lost a bunch of very close games to "ok" or average teams. The only teams we've gotten really beat are by REALLY good teams.

Maybe i need to take a deep breath. Maybe this team is more compettive then i'm giving it credit for right now.

If by Christmas we're sitting with a similar record i'll stand by my stance that we should either be looking to the future or looking to the now, and that not doing anything will get us no where.

 

[garret9]

I don't get the panic over losing four games to three teams that have a total of 5 regulation-time losses between them, all season. In two of the games we came as close as just about anyone has to beating those teams (and in fact we have beaten St. Louis in extra time already this year). The one time we played a slightly less elite, but still very good, team (Detroit), we trounced them. How about we wait and see how the Jets do against some non-elite teams.

We have... with a ~33% win percentage on teams with <50% shot metrics. (Only 6 games)

Plus we're coming to the point where shot metrics become very, very predictive:

This stat above has started getting used in 2007.
Since then it has predicted team's future win% better than teams goal differentials or win% at the time.

Jets right now are at 23rd in the NHL. Now remember this shows the most likely outcome, but
1) most likely outcomes doesn't mean only outcomes
and
2) teams / personnel / strategy changes can change most likely future outcomes

 

[Howard Chuck]

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not panicking. I do, however, enjoy discussing the game, the team and the organization.

We all have opinions and I enjoy reading them all. Some I absorb into my own opinion and some I don't.