Prospect Info: Winnipeg Jets Prospects Thread 2018-19 - Part II

[Maukkis]

Kevin Bahl, 2018 Arizona 2nd rounder, 55th overall. Now that is a good value pick! They didn't even have to trade up to get him.

A good value pick, or an awful pick? I mean...

	GP	G	A	P	PPG	Height
A	46	4	18	22	0.48	6'6"
B	45	3	32	35	0.78	6'1"
C	46	9	24	33	0.72	6'2"

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Could just be my personal opinion, but low scoring - prospects - from any league - at any position - tend to be quite bad choices. Skill is what matters, and I don't think I'm that far off when I say that those who produce points well are often quite skilled too.

Size is not a bad thing, if it comes with enough skill and speed to make the pick worth it. But can you put a 7'0" basketball player on the ice and expect him to do well as an athletic tall guy?

 

[MrBoJangelz71]

You aren't unearthing any inside analysis here either.

Maybe I misunderstood you, but I thought you yourself indicated slow but steady progress a while back. Did I say that was necessarily a bad thing? No progress is a bad thing. Fast progress would have him on our 2nd pair in the NHL. Is he handling his first pro season very well? Why must everything be either black or white? Great or terrible. Why can't we accept that Stanley is progressing. Period. If I hate the pick I must hate Stanley. Bull****! Where did I say that Stanley was a wasted pick who is struggling in his development? I have repeatedly acknowledged the positive reports on his progress. I don't have anything against Stanley at all. I hate the pick. I think it was an organizational brain-fart. I hope they never make a similar decision.

He starts slow, with steeper progression, his first season is slow, with a strong jump in the following season.

Your last sentence is a fairly strong indication you are negative with the player because they are the result of a “brain fart” by the organization.

This organization has yet to brain fart on a first rounder, And many of those pics did not jive with what the analytics crowd was telling us.

Whether or not you like the pic or if it was even the right pic for us, we are still a couple years from knowing. I don’t mind the pic and I see many signs that it has a very good chance of being a very good pick for us.

 

[Daximus]

A good value pick, or an awful pick? I mean...

	GP	G	A	P	PPG	Height
A	46	4	18	22	0.48	6'6"
B	45	3	32	35	0.78	6'1"
C	46	9	24	33	0.72	6'2"

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Could just be my personal opinion, but low scoring - prospects - from any league - at any position - tend to be quite bad choices. Skill is what matters, and I don't think I'm that far off when I say that those who produce points well are often quite skilled too.

I should say it's better value than Stanley. He's a better skater too. Obviously Chisholm and Vallati are much better value for where they were taken. I agree that you go for skill and ability as theose are the guys that tend to produce. Even most great NHL shutdown Dmen were able to produce at lower levels. Being a good shutdown dman is all about smarts and having high IQ often leads to production.

 

[DeepFrickinValue]

Always thought jets should trade up or down from second round as team really hasn’t done so well. Close but no cigar many times.

Seems top 10 to 20 is where team thrives.

 

[Daximus]

He starts slow, with steeper progression, his first season is slow, with a strong jump in the following season.

Your last sentence is a fairly strong indication you are negative with the player because they are the result of a “brain fart” by the organization.

This organization has yet to brain fart on a first rounder, And many of those pics did not jive with what the analytics crowd was telling us.

Whether or not you like the pic or if it was even the right pic for us, we are still a couple years from knowing. I don’t mind the pic and I see many signs that it has a very good chance of being a very good pick for us.

Don't fall into the strawman that just because they haven't missed on anyone in the first round yet they will never miss on anyone. All picks are open to criticism as anyone see's fit and the crow shall be eaten later. I really do hope I will eat a tonne of crow on Stanley and will gladly be the first to admit I was wrong. But I have a lot of confidence in my opnion, just as you do. And I don't think I will be eating any crow on Stanley anytime soon. I wasn't around here for picks previous to Ehlers so never had the chance to share my opinions to the world about them. And naything I say now about them would be taken with a grain of salt but I wasn't super pumped on the Scheif pick, but that was before I really knew anything about prospect watching. I just looked at the lists and said okay so he's ranked higher he must be better, which is a very dumb way to go about it. Now I watch every single prospect I can and form my own opinions and sometimes I'm glaringly wrong and sometimes I'm glaringly right, but I have confidence in saying that I don't think Stanley will ever exceed his draft position which is why I don't like the pick.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Not sure what the significance of the rounds that we hit on means, as long as we are hitting, which I think is the most important point. We currently have 11 pics playing significant roles in our organization with our NHL team, that is significant.

You’re pulling out the small examples of other players that we missed on as some sort of proof that our scouts are doing that great of a job? It seems quite silly to me to be honest, as you can micro analyze all organizations in the entire league and they all will have examples of missing on a player. What is important is that overall you’re hitting on a certain amount of your picks every draft, year which we are.

And all I was saying is that our scouts saw something in Sami enough to influence our general manager to make the pic and they deserve credit for that. Not sure why anybody would suggest they don’t.

I'm saying that our drafting is nothing special after the first round. We have done very well for our draft position in the first. Full credit for a good job.

Also full credit for the bold. Who suggested otherwise?

I count 10 of our picks but no need to quibble. We've had 8 drafts. If we need 2 per draft we aren't making it. But don't count the last 2 drafts. Its too soon. So we need 12. We are close and there are still a couple on the cusp. We might make the 12 in 6 drafts.

Not all hits and all rounds are the same. It is more important to hit on the first round picks as that's where the higher ceilings are usually found, especially for F's. We have a very high hit rate there.

But some people are saying that Chevy's drafting is so good that we don't need high picks. That is demonstrably untrue. Chevy is not some sort of drafting savant. He has done a good job with high picks. He is not an alchemist turning dross into gold.

 

[Maukkis]

I should say it's better value than Stanley. He's a better skater too. Obviously Chisholm and Vallati are much better value for where they were taken. I agree that you go for skill and ability as theose are the guys that tend to produce. Even most great NHL shutdown Dmen were able to produce at lower levels. Being a good shutdown dman is all about smarts and having high IQ often leads to production.

Might be. But is Bahl a bad pick at 55, when picks #150 and #153 are arguably doing better (maybe even significantly so)?

I think Garret said it some time ago that D prospects do pick up the understanding of how to play defense (loosely re-phrased) along the way, but very few actually find offensive skill after they've been drafted. If that was the consensus among scouts, we would never see a Stanley or a Bahl get drafted as early as they were.

Funnily enough, somebody (might have been you, actually) mentioned that we would have taken Bahl at 60 last year. The discourse that took place during the entire second round was essentially begging that somebody would take that 'bahl-et' for us. And the Coyotes did.

To end with some food for thought - how would you react to us picking Alex Vlasic? 6'6", kinda mediocre point totals with the development program. Ranked around the end of the first round, precisely where we are going to pick (unless Chevy f***s it up).

 

[Daximus]

Might be. But is Bahl a bad pick at 55, when picks #150 and #153 are arguably doing better (maybe even significantly so)?

I think Garret said it some time ago that D prospects do pick up the understanding of how to play defense (loosely re-phrased) along the way, but very few actually find offensive skill after they've been drafted. If that was the consensus among scouts, we would never see a Stanley or a Bahl get drafted as early as they were.

Funnily enough, somebody (might have been you, actually) mentioned that we would have taken Bahl at 60 last year. The discourse that took place during the entire second round was essentially begging that somebody would take that 'bahl-et' for us. And the Coyotes did.

To end with some food for thought - how would you react to us picking Alex Vlasic? 6'6", kinda mediocre point totals with the development program. Ranked around the end of the first round, precisely where we are going to pick (unless Chevy ****s it up).

Not a fan of Vlasic but he will undoubtably be picked in the first 2 rounds on size alone. I'd imagine he is a high personality guy to. Which is always thrown around with the big boys.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

He starts slow, with steeper progression, his first season is slow, with a strong jump in the following season.

Your last sentence is a fairly strong indication you are negative with the player because they are the result of a “brain fart” by the organization.

This organization has yet to brain fart on a first rounder, And many of those pics did not jive with what the analytics crowd was telling us.

Whether or not you like the pic or if it was even the right pic for us, we are still a couple years from knowing. I don’t mind the pic and I see many signs that it has a very good chance of being a very good pick for us.

Nope. The pick being a brain-fart simply means that there were better bets available - and that fact was plain to see. I am not in the least negative about Stanley. I have always been on the fence. I still am, but the positive reports are encouraging. I always expected him to take a minimum of 2 years of AHL to reach an NHL level of play, probably 3. That hasn't changed.

There is a positive that I haven't mentioned, or seen mentioned before. That is that the probability of an outright bust gets smaller with each positive step he takes. I can't put a number to the odds but whatever the number is his odds of becoming a legit NHL player are higher now than they were a year ago. And that number is still improving, AFAIK.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Watching Stanley makes it clear that he has more than "personality". He's developed more offensively than I expected.

There's something totbe said for players like Lowry or Copp or Morrissey instead of players like Ho Sang or Bogo or Kane. I've wondered if one of the changes that Chevy brought to the scouting team that came from the Thrashers was more due diligence about personality and character, in addition to other scouting considerations.

IIRC there were statements to that effect in the first couple of years. I'm sure I heard Chevy say that they put a lot of stock in the interviews.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Every staff will have it's weaknesses. Overall, the Jets haven't whiffed on too many, so something is working in their process.

I would hope that the people involved are still learning. It is not just the picks that are made but it is also those who may have been touted by one or more scouts who were not picked. A few years later they see the results. If they are good people they are evolving their opinion forming process accordingly.

So, if we hear that scout A favoured drafting Morin, Stanley, Cederholm, Sutter, etc, we shouldn't necessarily assume he would still hold those same opinions today. I hope he would now be a better scout for the experience.

 

[MrBoJangelz71]

Nope. The pick being a brain-fart simply means that there were better bets available - and that fact was plain to see. I am not in the least negative about Stanley. I have always been on the fence. I still am, but the positive reports are encouraging. I always expected him to take a minimum of 2 years of AHL to reach an NHL level of play, probably 3. That hasn't changed.

There is a positive that I haven't mentioned, or seen mentioned before. That is that the probability of an outright bust gets smaller with each positive step he takes. I can't put a number to the odds but whatever the number is his odds of becoming a legit NHL player are higher now than they were a year ago. And that number is still improving, AFAIK.

Time will tell, if the facts we’re indeed facts, or if this organization has its own facts that it uses to draft players, that were more factual.

Odds are there will be better players drafted after him, and if those were the players the facts pointed to then it could be viewed as a brain fart.

If Stanley develops in to a serviceable 2nd pairing dman that can kill penalties, add toughness and has a big shot, I can live with the smell of that brain fart.

 

[nobody imp0rtant]

So, if we hear that scout A favoured drafting Morin, Stanley, Cederholm, Sutter, etc, we shouldn't necessarily assume he would still hold those same opinions today. I hope he would now be a better scout for the experience.

See, this is one area where we differ markedly. You hope that scout has learned from his mistakes. I hope that scout got fired and is making the same mistakes with another NHL team, preferably within our division.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Time will tell, if the facts we’re indeed facts, or if this organization has its own facts that it uses to draft players, that were more factual.

Odds are there will be better players drafted after him, and if those were the players the facts pointed to then it could be virewed as a brain fart.

If Stanley develops in to a serviceable 2nd pairing dman that can kill penalties, add toughness and has a big shot, I can live with the smell of that brain fart.

Becoming a serviceable 2nd pairing D man will be exceeding my expectations. I'll be more than happy with that. My hopes are more modest. If he can be a 3rd pair player, but a good one, not a fringe player being tasked above his ability level, I will be satisfied. I won't even require that he be OK moving up if we have injuries. That's where Myers frequently has trouble. If he can be like Myers but with a little less scoring, I think that would be good.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

See, this is one area where we differ markedly. You hope that scout has learned from his mistakes. I hope that scout got fired and is making the same mistakes with another NHL team, preferably within our division.

Ehh, I could go either way.

 

[KingBogo]

See, this is one area where we differ markedly. You hope that scout has learned from his mistakes. I hope that scout got fired and is making the same mistakes with another NHL team, preferably within our division.

Scouts provide information to the organization. I'd prefer that our scouts provide information on all types of players. It is then the job of the whole scouting team, the head scout and the GM to come up with a draft board.

 

[Whileee]

Samberg with another goal tonight... game's still in the second period.

 

[snowkiddin]

Gee whiz you’d think Stanley crapped in the cornflakes of some of the people on here

 

[KingBogo]

Gee whiz you’d think Stanley crapped in the cornflakes of some of the people on here

No doubt he is carrying the "hated prospect" tag. Since the initial avalanche of s*** heaped on his shoulders I've been in the kids corner big time.

 

[MardyBum]

No doubt he is carrying the "hated prospect" tag. Since the initial avalanche of s*** heaped on his shoulders I've been in the kids corner big time.

Because?

 

[garret9]

As the apparently leader of the anti-Stanley fan club, I will point out to what I said the day before the draft:

This is nothing against Stanley, despite what some of this article may make it look like. The truth is that Stanley is still a legitimate NHL prospect that would be a welcomed addition to the Jets’ prospect cupboard. The issue is the opportunity cost in there likely still being better options available at pick number 22 and Stanley’s numbers need to be considered when taking player’s ceiling, floor, and likelihood of making the NHL as a regular contributor.
I get why there is the appeal. Stanley’s size balances out Jets’ top left-hand prospect Josh Morrissey. Even without knowing anything else, the thought of a 6’7 left hand defender playing in a top-four that includes Morrissey and Jacob Trouba is quite alluring. If Morrissey, Trouba, and Stanley all hit their potential ceilings, the Jets would be a hard team to play against for years.
The biggest issue with all this is that there is the need for a conditional qualifier with “if” which means there is a chance that it could not come to pass. Now, there is always chance with any prospect that they could become great or totally bust, but the chance is not equal in each case.
…and there are many signs that Stanley won’t be the best chance available.

and

“So Stanley is terrible and should not be drafted?”
No. That’s not true.
As I noted before, Stanley is still a player I would welcome into the Jets’ organization. After all the flaws I have pointed out, there are still aspects to his game that makes him better than other players who will be drafted, even to the Jets. There is also the chance that Stanley could be the exception and I understand there are things some professional scouts may have seen that I have not.
However, my issue is that Stanley is not a player that I would want my team to select at 22nd overall, as there are going to be players who have garnered results that indicate higher ceilings and lower floors. Even at the Jets 36th overall pick, I’d still be skeptical.
Where would I draft Stanley? I would use a third round pick on him, but he won’t be around then and the Jets’ do not have a third anyways. If the Jets do draft Stanley at 22nd or 36th overall, I hope they make up for it by garnering plus value later in the draft. Otherwise, the Jets could end up with another Lucas Sutter on their hands.
While there are differences that separate the Sutter pick and what would happen if the Jets took Stanley, there are comparisons as well. Sutter at the time was still a legitimate NHL prospect, had a projectable frame, scored but not well, had limited upside, and was taken earlier than he should have been.
Play the odds and remember that scoring matters.

 

[Whileee]

As the apparently leader of the anti-Stanley fan club, I will point out to what I said the day before the draft:



and

I think you have had a very balanced and informed view of Stanley. You were much more moderate in your consideration than I was on draft day, and have stayed consistently even-keeled and objective, in my view. I appreciate that approach, along with all of the analytical insights you provide on this and other topics.

 

[Whileee]

As the apparently leader of the anti-Stanley fan club, I will point out to what I said the day before the draft:



and

By the way, one of the stark differences between Stanley and Sutter relate to "character" and work ethic. Stanley will be successful only if he continues to work very hard to improve. Sutter never really had the inclination to do that.

 

[Whileee]

Fun facts...

NHL equivalency (D+2) (source: NHLe Calculator - Frozen Tools):

Dylan Samberg 16
Liljegren 16
Cal Foote 16
PO Joseph 16
Gawanke 19

 

[MrBoJangelz71]

For me, the biggest dissapointment in the 2016 draft was not moving up to draft Stanley, but not moving up a bit more to draft Chychrun.

Prior to the draft lottery, we were all under the belief Chychrun was a probable draft pick for us, one that would hit on bpa and fill a need. The fact we had a very realistic opportunity to land him and Laine on draft night was crazy

But had we not hit on the lottery and stuck on a 6th pick, most likely we would have gone with Tkachuk which would have been a nice fit for us.