Quality vs Quantity

[Mortimer Snerd]

Does anyone see trading quality prospects for quality prospects with teams that have the opposite strength? We seem to be stronger and have plenty of supply at the forward position. We are missing quality LD prospects. If we could find a trading partner like the Flyers that are looking to fill a forward need, both teams can prosper and fill their weakest positions.

That LD prospect could find their way on to next years roster, all things considered.

I've been advocating that for some time. It seems that most teams hesitate to trade their prospects until after they are proven one way or another. If they turn out well then the team keeps them. If they turn out poorly the team wants to trade them but there are no takers or the price is very low (D'uh). The day of the draft they may be willing to part with a pick but as soon as they have put a name and a face to the pick it doubles in value. Some 'human nature artifact' I guess.

True but at this point we are still a developing team and need that quantity to keep filling out the bottom of the roster. When I look at the roster I don't see us moving into contender territory for a 2-3 years even with a guy like Matthews.
At that point I think we can start flipping prospects of which we should still have a decent amount. Given we have 7 picks in the top 60 of the next 3 drafts. With some solid drafting that is at least 7 more players coming into the organization with reasonably high ceilings not counting any 3rd or later round hits. We could even begin flipping those picks to help fill holes or add to prospects to get more proven players. I think stocking up on quantity is still a good idea but with that being said I wouldn't be at all opposed to using a few guys to get us a Drouin or LHD prospect. But at this point I think standing pat is still a good strategy for at least another 2 years. Then go on a flipping rampage to build a monster roster.
Having both some quality and quantity is nice.

First bold: The idea is to accelerate that process a bit. The mix of quantity and quality we have now gives us plenty of supporting players but we are lacking a bit at the high end. After this year we should draft later and later which makes high end draftees less and less likely.

Second bold: Yes, but at that point the need to do so is less.

Third & fourth bold: I agree.

You may disagree with the concept altogether but you have kind of waffled on it here a bit. If I could I would trade a bucketload of some of our second tier prospects and picks for a couple of high end players or prospects that would be game changers. I'm dubious that such a trade exists but I would do it in a heartbeat if it came along. If I would do that it follows then that I should do a lesser upgrade for a lesser price and I would.

It seems like good old hockey trades are few and far between nowadays. Think about the trade board here and how attached to some of these prospects the fans get. They won't trade them for anything less than an overpayment. Now think about GM's of these teams that actually have personal relationships with these kids, they have watched them numerous times, took them in the draft, watched them develop through the system and then you add the pressure from Ownership to never ever lose a trade. Things get much trickier.

I'd love to make a prospect swap with a team rich in LHD prospects but the market for LHD prospects is huge right now. For anyone worth it we would likely need to start with a top prospect. Someone we probably don't want to trade.

Agree. Real hockey trades seem to just get less and less common. The expansion draft will only add to that. So much nowadays is about contracts and cap etc. A bit oddly though that should make trades of prospects more common, not less. Prospect for prospect is so much less complicated but I guess the fear of losing a trade is even greater.

Is the market for LHD that hot? It seems to me that RHD should be more in demand. The market for D in general is always tight. Makes me wonder why we don't draft more of them with higher picks? I can think of 2 teams rich in LHD prospects and both could use more F prospects but apparently they want to keep what they have.

Bottom line is that when I look at our prospective lineup and what we would have left in the pipeline I think we can afford to make some moves now.

Forwards
Ehlers - Scheifele - Wheeler
Perreault - Little - Stafford
Connor - Burmi - Armia
Lowry - Copp - Dano
Thor, Peluso
Petan, Kosmo, Lipon, Lemieux, Roslovic, De Leo, just to name the most likely looking ones. If 1 or 2 of those I named in the top 12 don't work out or are traded we have quite a few others pushing from the bottom. There are still a few I didn't name who have a chance plus all of what we might get this year.

Defense
Trouba - Buff
Enstrom - Myers
Morrissey - Postma
Chiarot, Stu
Lostalek
No way I trade any D man unless there is some D help coming back somehow.

If I could make up a package of 1 or 2 prospects and/or 1 or 2 picks to pry some high end LHD from 1 of those teams who have several I would. If I could put together a stronger package to get a 1C I certainly would put quite a few pieces on the table. Maybe even some who are favourites of some here.

That doesn't say that any such trades are available but I think Chevy should be hunting for them.

 

[Daximus]

First bold: The idea is to accelerate that process a bit. The mix of quantity and quality we have now gives us plenty of supporting players but we are lacking a bit at the high end. After this year we should draft later and later which makes high end draftees less and less likely.

Second bold: Yes, but at that point the need to do so is less.

Third & fourth bold: I agree.

You may disagree with the concept altogether but you have kind of waffled on it here a bit. If I could I would trade a bucketload of some of our second tier prospects and picks for a couple of high end players or prospects that would be game changers. I'm dubious that such a trade exists but I would do it in a heartbeat if it came along. If I would do that it follows then that I should do a lesser upgrade for a lesser price and I would.

I'm generally not a fan of accelerating anything. Shortcuts often tend to lead to failure in the NHL. Just ask the Leafs how well shortcuts work. They've been trying that method for 40 years. I think sticking with it until we start to really make some noise in the playoffs is better unless something comes across the plate that has home run written all over it. It has to be a win for us.

Agree. Real hockey trades seem to just get less and less common. The expansion draft will only add to that. So much nowadays is about contracts and cap etc. A bit oddly though that should make trades of prospects more common, not less. Prospect for prospect is so much less complicated but I guess the fear of losing a trade is even greater.

Is the market for LHD that hot? It seems to me that RHD should be more in demand. The market for D in general is always tight. Makes me wonder why we don't draft more of them with higher picks? I can think of 2 teams rich in LHD prospects and both could use more F prospects but apparently they want to keep what they have.

The market in general for defencemen is definitely tight. I was really wishing we would take more D prospects last year. I like Roslovic but he was pretty low on my list I had a number of Dmen that were still on the board over him. Oh well he looks good.

Bottom line is that when I look at our prospective lineup and what we would have left in the pipeline I think we can afford to make some moves now.

Forwards
Ehlers - Scheifele - Wheeler
Perreault - Little - Stafford
Connor - Burmi - Armia
Lowry - Copp - Dano
Thor, Peluso
Petan, Kosmo, Lipon, Lemieux, Roslovic, De Leo, just to name the most likely looking ones. If 1 or 2 of those I named in the top 12 don't work out or are traded we have quite a few others pushing from the bottom. There are still a few I didn't name who have a chance plus all of what we might get this year.

Defense
Trouba - Buff
Enstrom - Myers
Morrissey - Postma
Chiarot, Stu
Lostalek
No way I trade any D man unless there is some D help coming back somehow.

If I could make up a package of 1 or 2 prospects and/or 1 or 2 picks to pry some high end LHD from 1 of those teams who have several I would. If I could put together a stronger package to get a 1C I certainly would put quite a few pieces on the table. Maybe even some who are favourites of some here.

That doesn't say that any such trades are available but I think Chevy should be hunting for them.

We need to make sure some more guys pan out before making some moves. Our only real hole is LHD so if it's a swap we can get done I'd be open to that otherwise I think we have a pretty good roster moving forward. An elite #1C would be nice but good luck prying one of those from anyone unless they're off their rocker.

 

[ellismate]

I think we're going to get quality based on our quantity. If 1 in 4 reaches their ceiling, then having 12 is a good idea.

 

[Say What]

Trouba is very much cost controlled. He is an RFA for 4 more years. That is the definition of 'cost controlled'. That doesn't necessarily mean 'pushover at negotiation table'.

It would be foolish to trade any of our top 4 D until we have a replacement in place. You may consider Trouba on the left as an inconclusive experiment but until we get another top 4 LHD he is what we have. That is how we get the minutes for our 3 top 4 RHD.

I don't give a rat's patoot what Tampa has asked for. If that's what it takes we don't have what they need - to spare.

I like your original premise for this thread however by focusing on Drouin you have already gone off course, IMO. He is not a very good fit, either for our needs or for our excess of 'quantity'. We don't have what TB apparently want. They want to trade with Anaheim or Philly.

To your first bold: Trouba is cost controlled to the Jets, because the Jets will retain this asset regardless of the situation (signed contract or holdout). However, Tampa doesn't want to trade an asset for a possible exorbitant contract (they may/may not have cap issues) or a holdout player. What Trouba will cost, is anything 'but'... controlled. Having control of his rights doesn't mean knowing what he'll actually cost (long or short term contract).

To the second: I used Drouin because he's a prime example of a top end talent, but he also happens to be a diminishing asset; one that can possibly be obtained at a reduced cost. If you happen to have the right assets available.

For all the 'dithering' comments I read about Kevin Cheveldayoff, I find it odd that a proactive approach isn't the preferred choice. Not necessarily Drouin, as I agree, forwards are not the Jets main problem.

Waiting until all the prospects show what they will be, as you rightfully stated, is missing the boat. You won't get anything for the 'busts' by then. And unfortunately, many won't hit their projected ceiling (ie. bust).

 

[10Ducky10]

Exactly.
Identify problems/weaknesses
Target solutions specific to those identified issues
Continue/repeat



The problems are listed. Fixes for some are on the way. Special teams and penalties are up to the coaches to fix. I'm not convinced we have the right assistant coaches for the job.

We have forward depth at hand. Defense depth is another story. It needs to be addressed.



Trouba is very much cost controlled. He is an RFA for 4 more years. That is the definition of 'cost controlled'. That doesn't necessarily mean 'pushover at negotiation table'.

It would be foolish to trade any of our top 4 D until we have a replacement in place. You may consider Trouba on the left as an inconclusive experiment but until we get another top 4 LHD he is what we have. That is how we get the minutes for our 3 top 4 RHD.

I don't give a rat's patoot what Tampa has asked for. If that's what it takes we don't have what they need - to spare.

I like your original premise for this thread however by focusing on Drouin you have already gone off course, IMO. He is not a very good fit, either for our needs or for our excess of 'quantity'. We don't have what TB apparently want. They want to trade with Anaheim or Philly.

Isn't Trouba eligible for salary arbitration in one more year?

 

[Aavco Cup]

Isn't Trouba eligible for salary arbitration in one more year?

Yes he will have arb rights after completing his 4 th year. But 1 year deals after an ELC are extremely rare. Most bridge deals are 2 years.

 

[scelaton]

Below is a top-20 prospect list I snipped from a post I made after Jets' development camp and now modified, with the addition of Dano and our 2-2016 1st rounders. The top-20 are actually the top 23 with the 3 additions (bolded).
The point is that we have no room for all our prospects and at least 15 have either played in the NHL or almost certainly have the skill to do so. That means they have trade value.
The question is not whether we should trade valuable prospects, but when, to whom, and for what.
This is exactly the depth we wanted at 5 years. Now we can start to use it, painful as it may be to part.

A=high likelihood to be top line F, top pair D
B+=high likelihood of top 6F, top-4D, top-20 G
B=> 50% probability of top 9F, 2nd pair D, or starting NHL G
C+=>50% probability of bottom 6 F, bottom pair D
C=<50% probability of 100 NHL games

1. Ehlers-A
2. Connor-A
2016 1st-A
3.Hellebyuck-A
Dano-B+
4. Petan B+
5. Morrissey-B+
6. Armia-B+
7. Roslovic-B
2016 1st (Chicago's)-B
8.Comrie -B
9.Spacek-B
10.Kostalek-B
11. Lemieux-C+
12. Copp-C+
13.Harkins C+
14.De Leo-C+
15.Kosmachuck-C+
16 Lipon-C+
17.Niku-C
18.Foley-C
19.Poolman-C
20.Glover-C