Nail Yakupov

[james10011]

Ladd is in his prime...

http://www.arcticicehockey.com/2010/1/21/1261318/nhl-points-per-game-peak-age

Most players peak around late 25. Andrew Ladd is 27. Andrew Ladd is probably on the down-slope of his productive years. Assuming we estimate this team will be good in ~2 years, Andrew Ladd will be 29 and well past his prime years.

 

[Positive]

Ladd is not like most players.

I hate that article by the way. It's cited all the time. But the sample doesn't include any players born in 1980 or later....only players born between 62 and 79. I feel t's sort of a sample of players from a previous era.

 

[surixon]

http://www.arcticicehockey.com/2010/1/21/1261318/nhl-points-per-game-peak-age

Most players peak around late 25. Andrew Ladd is 27. Andrew Ladd is probably on the down-slope of his productive years. Assuming we estimate this team will be good in ~2 years, Andrew Ladd will be 29 and well past his prime years.

It seems that Ladd is following more of an Alfie like trend where he's peaking later in his career. I'm not saying he will keep it up but there have been plenty of guys that have maintained strong play well into their 30's.

Even if he reverts back into a 50-55 point two-way 2nd liner he'd still provide a lot of value to this team when it's ready to compete. He's been through two cup runs that amount of playoff experience is invaluable.

 

[Duke749]

http://www.arcticicehockey.com/2010/1/21/1261318/nhl-points-per-game-peak-age

Most players peak around late 25. Andrew Ladd is 27. Andrew Ladd is probably on the down-slope of his productive years. Assuming we estimate this team will be good in ~2 years, Andrew Ladd will be 29 and well past his prime years.

Just because most players do, doesn't mean Ladd has. You do realize he put up 46 in 48 games at the age of 27 right? Now, he might slowly drop going forward, but it's not like he trending downward right now. He's been pretty dam consistent offensively for several years with last year being his best. This year doesn't look much different.

 

[james10011]

Just because most players do, doesn't mean Ladd has. You do realize he put up 46 in 48 games at the age of 27 right? Now, he might slowly drop going forward, but it's not like he trending downward right now. He's been pretty dam consistent offensively for several years with last year being his best. This year doesn't look much different.

Ladd is most certainly trending downwards from a physical perspective. He's the best hockey player that he's ever been, but sooner rather than later his inevitable decline in physical ability will outweigh his improvement in other areas. Even if we assume Ladd has another 5 good years, which is unlikely, Yakupov would still only be 25 years old and smack dab in his prime playing years. This team is obviously not ready to compete as it is now, so if the option to skew younger presented itself at basically face-value, I'd have to take that deal.

 

[wpgsilver]

Ladd is most certainly trending downwards from a physical perspective. He's the best hockey player that he's ever been, but sooner rather than later his inevitable decline in physical ability will outweigh his improvement in other areas. Even if we assume Ladd has another 5 good years, which is unlikely, Yakupov would still only be 25 years old and smack dab in his prime playing years. This team is obviously not ready to compete as it is now, so if the option to skew younger presented itself at basically face-value, I'd have to take that deal.

The value of Yakupov in your argument is based on him developing into a consistent, high quality player, that stays in North America.
I know a ten year old with a decent wrist shot. If we trade Ladd for him now, we can get 30 years out of him!

Trading an established quality player for a potential quality player is always risky. I really believe that Yakupov CAN develop into a very good player. I'm just not sold he will.

 

[james10011]

The value of Yakupov in your argument is based on him developing into a consistent, high quality player, that stays in North America.
I know a ten year old with a decent wrist shot. If we trade Ladd for him now, we can get 30 years out of him!

Trading an established quality player for a potential quality player is always risky. I really believe that Yakupov CAN develop into a very good player. I'm just not sold he will.

It's a salary cap league, your options are take risks, tank or both. I think part of building a successful franchise involves knowing when to cash out your assets. If the current core of Jets is not going to be competitive, we should start orchestrating the rebuild. I literally can not think of a better way to start a rebuild than acquiring a #1 overall pick on an ELC.

The argument is basically: do you think the Jets can become really good before Andrew Ladd becomes hockey-old? I don't, so in my mind the trade would simply be the first step in an inevitable rebuild. I'd rather get Yakupov now, than the 3rd/4th a 30 year old Ladd nets.

 

[ps241]

Ladd is most certainly trending downwards from a physical perspective. He's the best hockey player that he's ever been, but sooner rather than later his inevitable decline in physical ability will outweigh his improvement in other areas. Even if we assume Ladd has another 5 good years, which is unlikely, Yakupov would still only be 25 years old and smack dab in his prime playing years. This team is obviously not ready to compete as it is now, so if the option to skew younger presented itself at basically face-value, I'd have to take that deal.

Interesting position and a good healthy debate.

I do agree Ladd might be peaking (based on the AIH article) but none of us really knows what the slope of his downside looks like. I am not saying he can carry us to a championship 5 years from now but there is no reason to think he can't be an important piece of the puzzle with a developing young core taking over. I think a blend of some key veterans is always good to have.

Maybe a part of this is that I am not sold that Nail would be "the guy" I would target if and when we begin transitioning our current core? If we are moving our captain I would rather make it a part of a package deal to solve our #1 centre issue (More like the Tyler Seguin deal).

Tomorrow if your were GM would you make this trade (Ladd for Nail) if it was pitched to Winnipeg James?

 

[wpgsilver]

It's a salary cap league, your options are take risks, tank or both. I think part of building a successful franchise involves knowing when to cash out your assets. If the current core of Jets is not going to be competitive, we should start orchestrating the rebuild. I literally can not think of a better way to start a rebuild than acquiring a #1 overall pick on an ELC.

The argument is basically: do you think the Jets can become really good before Andrew Ladd becomes hockey-old? I don't, so in my mind the trade would simply be the first step in an inevitable rebuild. I'd rather get Yakupov now, than the 3rd/4th a 30 year old Ladd nets.

I see where you're coming from, and by no means is what you're saying wrong.
Perhaps I'd agree more with you if I liked/had more faith in the player we were acquiring. I also think that even when Ladd is past his prime, when we could be contending, he would still have value to this team. If Ladds play start to decline he'll be a solid player still, and a guy with playoff experience.

 

[tacogeoff]

I have to say I would be interested in yak coming here. If we had to trade buff to get him I would not even be upset. I love what he brings to the game and his personality but he is too much of a defensive liablity imo. furthermore imo we are not a competitive playoff team for a few more years which would give Yak time to develop and understand our system.

Yak in my eyes is an offensive player which would help our team in the long run. 31pts in 48 games last year and he has fallen into a slump of 4pts in 17 games. It is all a process and Yak will def be an offensive force in this league. He has the tools but needs the proper system and honestly do have doubts if our current system would be right for him.



but just imagine in 2 years a first line of

Kane - Scheifele - Yakupov

That line combo sounds so good that I feel dirty looking at it lol.


Regardless I do not see the Oilers trading him to us but I wouldnt flinch to trade Buff as Nail's upside imo is high.

 

[surixon]

It's a salary cap league, your options are take risks, tank or both. I think part of building a successful franchise involves knowing when to cash out your assets. If the current core of Jets is not going to be competitive, we should start orchestrating the rebuild. I literally can not think of a better way to start a rebuild than acquiring a #1 overall pick on an ELC.

The argument is basically: do you think the Jets can become really good before Andrew Ladd becomes hockey-old? I don't, so in my mind the trade would simply be the first step in an inevitable rebuild. I'd rather get Yakupov now, than the 3rd/4th a 30 year old Ladd nets.

If that is the direction the franchise chooses to take then I'd rather them deal Wheeler and Buff well ahead of Ladd who as I mentioned earlier will still bring an awful lot to the table even if his offensive game does decline.

All good teams have veteran leadership or hockey old guys as you would say. No team wins with just a bunch of youth running around.

 

[Huffer]

It's a salary cap league, your options are take risks, tank or both. I think part of building a successful franchise involves knowing when to cash out your assets. If the current core of Jets is not going to be competitive, we should start orchestrating the rebuild. I literally can not think of a better way to start a rebuild than acquiring a #1 overall pick on an ELC.

The argument is basically: do you think the Jets can become really good before Andrew Ladd becomes hockey-old? I don't, so in my mind the trade would simply be the first step in an inevitable rebuild. I'd rather get Yakupov now, than the 3rd/4th a 30 year old Ladd nets.

I'm not against turning older assets into younger assets at the correct time. Especially when the older assets are nearing the end of their contracts and they are not going to re sign. Unless you are really set up for a run, I don't like losing assets for nothing.

I can understand your thinking here in that you are ok with trading away any player that you don't think is going to be a major contributor when the Jets are "good".

In this instance I just don't agree with it.

Yakupov isn't the guy I would personally want to take that risk with. He may have all world talent, but he's not a 200ft player and likely never will be. Too many question marks.

Also, Ladd doesn't seem like the guy that you look to deal away in this manner. Especially if he is willing to stay with the team. I want no part in the Oilers rudderless ship model. Hall has just come out and made a comment about wanting some vets. Ladd is a guy I would personally keep around to 35+. Basically moving him down from line 1, to line 2, and then line 3. All the while he can mentor the young players, and show them how to be a real pro. I think there is a lot of value in that.

 

[james10011]

If that is the direction the franchise chooses to take then I'd rather them deal Wheeler and Buff well ahead of Ladd who as I mentioned earlier will still bring an awful lot to the table even if his offensive game does decline.

All good teams have veteran leadership or hockey old guys as you would say. No team wins with just a bunch of youth running around.

It's not like veteran savvy is all that hard to come by though. Jarome Iginla was acquired for basically nothing. Maybe Iginla is the best example of what I'd hope to avoid. The Flames aren't good and haven't been good for a long while. If they'd realized it 4 years ago, trading Iginla + Kipper would have netted a kings ransom. Now they're left with nothing. I don't think the return on Ladd will ever be higher than it is right now, and from a future proofing stand-point that's all I care about. Maybe Yakupov isn't the guy we target, but young, top 5 picks don't become available all that often, I don't think we could afford to be picky.

I like Ladd though, he's exactly the piece I'd be looking to add if my team's window had recently began opening or closing.

Although this is probably all academic. Unless the Oilers desperate fanbase forces their hand, they'll probably look to hold on to Yakupov for the same reasons I'd want to acquire him.

 

[james10011]

Also, Ladd doesn't seem like the guy that you look to deal away in this manner. Especially if he is willing to stay with the team. I want no part in the Oilers rudderless ship model. Hall has just come out and made a comment about wanting some vets. Ladd is a guy I would personally keep around to 35+. Basically moving him down from line 1, to line 2, and then line 3. All the while he can mentor the young players, and show them how to be a real pro. I think there is a lot of value in that.

I think Ladd might be this type of player too, but I'd never overpay for it. If we can keep Ladd at a fair contract relative to his production I'd be elated. But it seems far too often that veteran savvy becomes salary-cap anchor. I'd need to be 100% certain he plans on retiring in Winnipeg at a decent price before placing him on my untouchable list.

 

[JetsHomer]

www.behindthenet.ca/nhl_statistics....+3+5+4+6+7+8+13+14+29+30+32+33+34+45+46+63+67

No, Bogosian has basically been terrible. He's faced above-average competition but he's also been severely outplayed by them. His pdo indicates he's been hugely lucky (explains the +\-), while his terrible corsi numbers indicate he's frequently getting out shot, and cor espondingly out-chanced. He's also got the second worse points/60 of the jets defenseman. He's a defenceman that currently can't score and can't defend.

He got severely out-matched when he was playing with Trouba and Clitsome, with Enstrom he has been decent to good. He's playing on the top pair, always with the top line but always against other teams top lines. Once he can excel and routinely beat these minutes he'll be a #1, right now he can play the minutes and play them decently, which makes him a solid #2 guy. I'd be really hesitant to trade a #2 D with #1 potential for anything less than a young top 6 center. D are just more important than wingers.

As for trading Ladd...I can see the logic in trading a deprecating asset to obtain maximum value. What I can't see is trading the team's Captain, one of the few forwards that basically brings it every night, who is currently outproducing his contract. He's playing like a top end first liner but being paid like a second liner. But let's bring in a kid that isn't even a second liner that wants first line ice time and is going to want first line money? Trading Ladd is not the type of decision hockey types and business types make. How's all that first overall talent working for Edmonton? How'd it work in Atlanta? Columbus?

 

[Huffer]

I think Ladd might be this type of player too, but I'd never overpay for it. If we can keep Ladd at a fair contract relative to his production I'd be elated. But it seems far too often that veteran savvy becomes salary-cap anchor. I'd need to be 100% certain he plans on retiring in Winnipeg at a decent price before placing him on my untouchable list.

True, contract price is everything.

And I agree with your other comment about Calgary. They hung on to a few guys for too long when the team had no chance. If your opinion was that the Jets are in that position, then I can see your point.

I really don't see us in that position at all myself. We're currently one of the youngest teams in the league. We have a decent roster, but need a net talent "infusion". I.E. Additional talent added to the roster without losing roster players. A quality UFA addition would do wonders for this roster.

If Buff is moved, even if he didn't return a really good roster player, I would think at the very least we would get quality picks and prospects, which in turn could be turned into a roster player. IOW, there are other ways to add young talent I think.

I know there are others that really want to pull the chute on our "older guys", but I don't think they are old enough for that. Plus, I would like to see how our team can look when those guys get some help.

At some point though, I know I will find myself hoping to deal away one of our older vets to acquire younger pieces. I'm just no where near that right now.

Now, if it's the summer of 2015 and both Ladd and Buff are still here, and not looking to re sign? I will probably be all for moving them at that point.

 

[james10011]

He got severely out-matched when he was playing with Trouba and Clitsome, with Enstrom he has been decent to good. He's playing on the top pair, always with the top line but always against other teams top lines. Once he can excel and routinely beat these minutes he'll be a #1, right now he can play the minutes and play them decently, which makes him a solid #2 guy. I'd be really hesitant to trade a #2 D with #1 potential for anything less than a young top 6 center. D are just more important than wingers.

As for trading Ladd...I can see the logic in trading a deprecating asset to obtain maximum value. What I can't see is trading the team's Captain, one of the few forwards that basically brings it every night, who is currently outproducing his contract. He's playing like a top end first liner but being paid like a second liner. But let's bring in a kid that isn't even a second liner that wants first line ice time and is going to want first line money? Trading Ladd is not the type of decision hockey types and business types make. How's all that first overall talent working for Edmonton? How'd it work in Atlanta? Columbus?

Re Bogo: Please provide these splits if you have them available. The overall stats stats we have access to say he plays poorly against good competition, if you have splits which indicate something different I'd be very interested in seeing them. Regardless, his shifts with Trouba don't explain his largely poor performance in past seasons. Also, Clitsome has better numbers against only slightly worse competition, so I don't see how he could be the anchor on that pairing.

Re Ladd: In two years he won't be a first-line player making second line money. If his current play continues, he'll look for his last big payday and over the life of that contract he will probably be a second line or lower player. It's not about what he is, it's about what he will be. Also, I seem to remember Ladd being traded twice, I guess the people in Chicago and Carolina aren't "hockey or business types". Apparently your opinions are a better representation of hockey/business types then theirs...

 

[Blackie Dammit]

We have the perfect amount of Russians on our team. IMO. No need to add.

 

[Grind]

Interesting position and a good healthy debate.

I do agree Ladd might be peaking (based on the AIH article) but none of us really knows what the slope of his downside looks like. I am not saying he can carry us to a championship 5 years from now but there is no reason to think he can't be an important piece of the puzzle with a developing young core taking over. I think a blend of some key veterans is always good to have.

Maybe a part of this is that I am not sold that Nail would be "the guy" I would target if and when we begin transitioning our current core? If we are moving our captain I would rather make it a part of a package deal to solve our #1 centre issue (More like the Tyler Seguin deal).

Tomorrow if your were GM would you make this trade (Ladd for Nail) if it was pitched to Winnipeg James?

If that is the direction the franchise chooses to take then I'd rather them deal Wheeler and Buff well ahead of Ladd who as I mentioned earlier will still bring an awful lot to the table even if his offensive game does decline.

All good teams have veteran leadership or hockey old guys as you would say. No team wins with just a bunch of youth running around.

I'm kind of betwen these two positions. I agree that if we determined we were in "sell for the future mode" i'd probably sell Wheels and Buff first over Ladd.

that being said, It's not quite as cut and dry. My interpretation of TNSE is that they want be competitive now (not bottom out for two -three years) while planning on "going deep" several year into the future.

The problem being very few franchises have pulled this off. Its becomes very difficult for teams to rebuild and remain competitive without dipping low to pick up some good talent. Only Detroit and New Jersey managed to do this for an extended period of time, while a team like Nashville has remained competitive, they've never really threatened to go deep.

In that sense, Ladd Wheeler and Buff do not necessarily have to make this team a contender now to have current value. If they help keep this team competitive (IE:playoffs/close to it) then the org sees value in that.

IF this team continues to remain noncompetitive, then I agree, they should be moved for either A)currently competitive assets B) Future "Contender" assets. I would call a former 1st overall 20 yearold the definition of a "future conteder asset".

My issue currently remains that I have no clear idea what we have in our jets.

They were decidedly noncompetitive through october but have since started to get some wins. Unfortunately, a couple of these wins seemed to be games "we shouldn't have won" and i worry that getting a couple wins my continue to mask a still "noncompetitive" team, freezing us into a standstill as far as player movement goes. This is the problem. Holding onto assets that fail to achieve goal 1 and cannot be moved to achieve goal 2.

After October i was pretty sure we weren't competitive. Since then we've started winning, but not at the rate that i'm willing to say our "current assets" are all doing their job. If we finish november winning 2/3 games then I might get a little more positive, but unfortunately i'm still quite concerned about this squad.

At the current juncture i'd find it hard to make a deal for Nail, but i think the potential positives outweigh the negatives.

 

[james10011]

True, contract price is everything.

And I agree with your other comment about Calgary. They hung on to a few guys for too long when the team had no chance. If your opinion was that the Jets are in that position, then I can see your point.

I really don't see us in that position at all myself. We're currently one of the youngest teams in the league. We have a decent roster, but need a net talent "infusion". I.E. Additional talent added to the roster without losing roster players. A quality UFA addition would do wonders for this roster.

If Buff is moved, even if he didn't return a really good roster player, I would think at the very least we would get quality picks and prospects, which in turn could be turned into a roster player. IOW, there are other ways to add young talent I think.

I know there are others that really want to pull the chute on our "older guys", but I don't think they are old enough for that. Plus, I would like to see how our team can look when those guys get some help.

At some point though, I know I will find myself hoping to deal away one of our older vets to acquire younger pieces. I'm just no where near that right now.

Now, if it's the summer of 2015 and both Ladd and Buff are still here, and not looking to re sign? I will probably be all for moving them at that point.

Yeah, we definitely understand each other, just differing opinions on where the team is at currently. I never thought I'd be in an online discussion that ended in "I see your perspective, respect it and simply disagree with it until we are presented with more information in the future."

""The ******* game was irritating to me. I thought it was really stupid. And it really is just, you know, sort of that simple, so I ended the game. You know? That's the end. Doesn't have to be a whole big thing every single time, you know, that's just life. That's just sorta how...how **** goes! HAHAHAHA! Sometimes things just sort of end." - Dennis

 

[wpgsilver]

Yeah, we definitely understand each other, just differing opinions on where the team is at currently. I never thought I'd be in an online discussion that ended in "I see your perspective, respect it and simply disagree with it until we are presented with more information in the future."

""The ******* game was irritating to me. I thought it was really stupid. And it really is just, you know, sort of that simple, so I ended the game. You know? That's the end. Doesn't have to be a whole big thing every single time, you know, that's just life. That's just sorta how...how **** goes! HAHAHAHA! Sometimes things just sort of end." - Dennis

It's a beautiful thing to see...

 

[james10011]

Tomorrow if your were GM would you make this trade (Ladd for Nail) if it was pitched to Winnipeg James?

If I was allowed to make a purely hockey decision which wasn't influenced by outside pressures: Yes, but I'd acknowledge it means a mini-rebuild is underway. As it is, Chevy can't really make the move without admitting he probably should have started the process 2 years ago. Then again, he could probably argue he was waiting for his assets to appreciate, and didn't want to sell-low on players he thought would net more later.

 

[Aela*]

Sorry, I couldn't disagree with you more. Bogo is not a question mark. He is most likely not going to become a #1, but he is already a defenseman that is capable of playing 23 plus minutes a night. He's already a solid #3, and a potential #2.

Sure, I agree. But he doesn't always play like a #2 or #3 defenseman - sometimes he's the Bogo who gives up free pizzas or is caught standing still. We still don't know if he'll be a solid player in his own end with a little bit of offense, or the opposite, or anything. That's why I referred to him as a question mark.

 

[Stej]

http://www.arcticicehockey.com/2010/1/21/1261318/nhl-points-per-game-peak-age

Most players peak around late 25. Andrew Ladd is 27. Andrew Ladd is probably on the down-slope of his productive years. Assuming we estimate this team will be good in ~2 years, Andrew Ladd will be 29 and well past his prime years.

In general I love AIH, but I really hate how this article gets used.

-Who's to say a player has "peaked" just because his points maxed out? There's a lot more to being an effective player than points. I would argue that 2-way play, leadership, mental toughness, and consistency probably continue to improve into the early 30's.

-The article suggests a drop in points per game of about 0.06 from age 25 to 29. That's about 4 or 5 points per season. Not a significant slide.

I just do not agree with the meme around here that we need to deal all our players that are age 26 to 28 because they are too old to fit our "window". We're one of the youngest teams in the league as it is!

 

[garret9]

In general I love AIH, but I really hate how this article gets used.

-Who's to say a player has "peaked" just because his points maxed out? There's a lot more to being an effective player than points. I would argue that 2-way play, leadership, mental toughness, and consistency probably continue to improve into the early 30's.

-The article suggests a drop in points per game of about 0.06 from age 25 to 29. That's about 4 or 5 points per season. Not a significant slide.

I just do not agree with the meme around here that we need to deal all our players that are age 26 to 28 because they are too old to fit our "window". We're one of the youngest teams in the league as it is!

Should be noted that article is also talking about offensively exclusively. Defensively, players peak later (I believe, but don't quote me, at 28ish). So, you can consider overall contributions somewhere past that offensive peak.

Also, another random note, the points per minute peak in the NHL is actually younger than 26! Coaching usage has a large influence in the curve of that graph.

Not really adding opinion to the conversation, but just adding some notes