Prospect Info: Winnipeg Jets Prospects Thread 2018-19

[Atoyot]

Vallati vs Chisholm in pre-season today, 1A for Vallati, nothing for Chisholm.

Eggenberger, who wasn't drafted and we'll see as an invite for Vancouver in the prospect tournament, had a hat trick.

 

[Whileee]

How good would it look if KV had not been available at 24?

Actually - it might still have been pretty good.

Still available if Vesalainen had gone earlier:
PO. Joseph
Morgan Frost
Henri Jokiharju
Eeli Tolvanen
Connor Timmins

I wouldn't be too unhappy with any of those.

Maybe Chevy got lucky - or maybe he made that deal knowing that the quality of picks available was pretty flat and there would not be much difference between 13 and 24. Looking at who was available it kind of looks like the latter.

My first reaction to the deal was disappointment - but credit where it is due, it appears to have worked out well so far.

Good as KV looks, I still might have preferred 1 of those RHD who might be able to replace Trouba when he leaves.

I'm pretty sure that Chevy preferred #13, but took the decision to put as strong a team as possible.

 

[Gm0ney]

It was still a bad, needless trade given that LV would likely have taken the soon to be deemed disposable Armia. Chevy might have gotten lucky, but trust me... we'll perk up again if KV lays an egg this season in the A (or K).

"When bad decisions turn into good results" is the working title of the documentary about the building of the Winnipeg Jets 2011-2017.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

I'm pretty sure that Chevy preferred #13, but took the decision to put as strong a team as possible.

Even with a flat group in that draft class 13 is better than 24. He had no choice but to give VGK something. This was his estimation of the minimum.

I still believe there should have been an opportunity there to shuffle some assets and actually improve our roster - but maybe GMGM was not cooperating. Who knows?

The bottom line is that we came through the XD with probably the smallest loss of any team.

 

[Whileee]

Even with a flat group in that draft class 13 is better than 24. He had no choice but to give VGK something. This was his estimation of the minimum.

I still believe there should have been an opportunity there to shuffle some assets and actually improve our roster - but maybe GMGM was not cooperating. Who knows?

The bottom line is that we came through the XD with probably the smallest loss of any team.

Well, don't forget he also gave Vegas Thorbs.

I do think the Jets gauged their assessment of the draft and perhaps didn't value the drop from #13 to #24 nearly as much as many fans here did. At this point, it's hard not to like the #24 pick more than the #13 pick, and a number of other picks in between.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Well, don't forget he also gave Vegas Thorbs.

I do think the Jets gauged their assessment of the draft and perhaps didn't value the drop from #13 to #24 nearly as much as many fans here did. At this point, it's hard not to like the #24 pick more than the #13 pick, and a number of other picks in between.

The only complaint I have with the way it went is that we didn't get a potential top 4 Dman, preferably RHS. It would be a lot easier to move Trouba if we had an internal replacement. We still might have gotten that at 24 if we didn't take KV. Good as KV is we have a glut of wingers.

 

[Weezeric]

The only complaint I have with the way it went is that we didn't get a potential top 4 Dman, preferably RHS. It would be a lot easier to move Trouba if we had an internal replacement. We still might have gotten that at 24 if we didn't take KV. Good as KV is we have a glut of wingers.

Drafting for need is never a good idea.

 

[nobody imp0rtant]

Drafting for need is never a good idea.

If you've got multiple players all rated around the same, I don't see why positional need shouldn't be taken into consideration.

 

[DEANYOUNGBLOOD17]

Well, don't forget he also gave Vegas Thorbs.

I do think the Jets gauged their assessment of the draft and perhaps didn't value the drop from #13 to #24 nearly as much as many fans here did. At this point, it's hard not to like the #24 pick more than the #13 pick, and a number of other picks in between.

Staying at 13 and picking Foote instead of dropping to 24 and picking K.C would have allowed us more flex in trading trading Trouba next off season. Having a top R.D prospect in the system instead of another high end winger.

A top end RD and #1center are higher values positions and harder to trade for. You have to draft them when givin the opportunity.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Drafting for need is never a good idea.

I didn't suggest that, necessarily. I would have liked it to work out that way because it has developed that we need a young, top 4 D man. Actually, we need 2 with Trouba leaving and Buff bound to age out sometime soon.

Drafting for need is a good idea when it works and a bad one when it doesn't.

The BPA insistence assumes you will be able to balance needs later. Trading appears to be getting to be more and more difficult. Dressing 20 LW's would not be a good idea - to take it to its extreme. How do you propose balancing a roster if you don't draft for need and can't trade for it?

That said, I think the Stanley thing was an attempt at drafting for need. I'm certainly not happy with that effort. So .... BPA it is. But right now we have an abundance of wingers and shortages everywhere else. I don't see any steps being taken to address that situation.

 

[Weezeric]

I didn't suggest that, necessarily. I would have liked it to work out that way because it has developed that we need a young, top 4 D man. Actually, we need 2 with Trouba leaving and Buff bound to age out sometime soon.

Drafting for need is a good idea when it works and a bad one when it doesn't.

The BPA insistence assumes you will be able to balance needs later. Trading appears to be getting to be more and more difficult. Dressing 20 LW's would not be a good idea - to take it to its extreme. How do you propose balancing a roster if you don't draft for need and can't trade for it?

That said, I think the Stanley thing was an attempt at drafting for need. I'm certainly not happy with that effort. So .... BPA it is. But right now we have an abundance of wingers and shortages everywhere else. I don't see any steps being taken to address that situation.

Agreed, but drafting for need really only makes sense in retrospect, because you’d be betting on what your needs will be in 3-5 years. I remember when Morrissey was drafted, a lot of people thought we had drafted too many defencemen...

 

[Whileee]

If you draft the better player you can trade for a lesser player in a position of need, but not sure why you'd want to do that. If KVes turns into a big, scoring top-6 winger then the Jets can find a way to use him or another player to fill a positional gap.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Agreed, but drafting for need really only makes sense in retrospect, because you’d be betting on what your needs will be in 3-5 years. I remember when Morrissey was drafted, a lot of people thought we had drafted too many defencemen...

And that is the crux of the problem. But a good GM should have some idea of what future needs will be. I think the best way to proceed is by blending BPA and need.

Our need for D and to a lesser extent C, has been apparent for several years. Our wealth at wing has been visible for at least a couple of years.

Recently we've seen a couple of wingers traded away for low value that has done nothing to help at D, C or G. We still have a lot of wingers. Is it impossible to trade W prospects for D prospects?

If that is the case then we need to be trying harder to draft good players for need. Jokiharju and Timmins are both good RHD prospects who were available when we took KV.

Maybe we could have taken another tack and traded for more high picks. We might then have been able to get KV plus some of the D prospects we clearly need.

Or, we just keep on drafting wingers and hope we can just outscore the opposition.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

If you draft the better player you can trade for a lesser player in a position of need, but not sure why you'd want to do that. If KVes turns into a big, scoring top-6 winger then the Jets can find a way to use him or another player to fill a positional gap.

Those trades don't seem to be happening. Why?

 

[Whileee]

Those trades don't seem to be happening. Why?

Teams overvalue their own prospects, for one.

But they do happen from time to time. Main thing is to have the top talent so you have valuable assets to trade when necessary.

 

[Daximus]

Those trades don't seem to be happening. Why?

Because it's never that easy. First of all you have to find a team that has a player you need and they have to need the player you have. Then there are salary cap considerations. Then most importantly the value has to be equal from both sides and that is where probably 95% of negotiations in trades fall apart. GM's never want to come out on the losing side because it can often mean their job is on the line. It's super easy to say we can just trade our excess for a need but in reality that happens far less than it likely should. Especially when you are dealing with a situation like Trouba where you may be losing the player to FA in a couple seasons anyways. All the sudden you lose some leverage and value.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Teams overvalue their own prospects, for one.

But they do happen from time to time. Main thing is to have the top talent so you have valuable assets to trade when necessary.

Can't argue with having talent.

My guess is that some good trades of wingers/w prospects for D/D prospects have probably been possible. I don't know why they haven't happened. I hope Chevy is not waiting for more certainty from the players he has.

To rehash some past discussions - Mason could have been kept as an expensive, but capable 1 year backup. We needed cap space so Perreault could have been moved at the draft. I won't be too ambitious on the return. Lets say, to Mtl for #38. That could have been used to take Bode Wilde, a RHD with strong top 4 upside. If Chevy still wants to get Brossoit as insurance, and maybe thinking another year ahead, fine. He can start for the Moose .... if he can take the job from Comrie. I love MP, but he is a declining asset. His body has absorbed a lot of punishment. I expect his value to only go down. We have replacement LWs in house.

We still needed a little more cap space. I think Armia would be worth a lot more than his contract but we need the space. Flames had a need for RW. They have at least partly filled that now but earlier in the off-season I think they might have been interested in Armia for Kylington. With Armia's PK skills, they still might be. Kylington is a near NHL ready LHD who also has top 4 upside.

These are just examples and of course, I have no way of knowing that the other teams would have cooperated. But I'm pretty sure that some things along those lines must have been possible.

I think that would be much better use of our wealth of wingers than using them to pay another team to take on a bad contract.

If I am mistaken, if trades like those can't be made then how are teams supposed to be able to balance their rosters? Waive good young players and sign expensive FAs who are past their primes?

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Because it's never that easy. First of all you have to find a team that has a player you need and they have to need the player you have. Then there are salary cap considerations. Then most importantly the value has to be equal from both sides and that is where probably 95% of negotiations in trades fall apart. GM's never want to come out on the losing side because it can often mean their job is on the line. It's super easy to say we can just trade our excess for a need but in reality that happens far less than it likely should. Especially when you are dealing with a situation like Trouba where you may be losing the player to FA in a couple seasons anyways. All the sudden you lose some leverage and value.

That is really my point. The theory is that you will adjust your roster to your needs via trade. Maybe that worked in the past but trades are becoming more and more rare. So we move closer to the 20 LWs scenario. Drafting for need doesn't seem to work very well. What's the solution?

 

[Daximus]

That is really my point. The theory is that you will adjust your roster to your needs via trade. Maybe that worked in the past but trades are becoming more and more rare. So we move closer to the 20 LWs scenario. Drafting for need doesn't seem to work very well. What's the solution?

There doesn't seem to be one. Just gotta take em as they come and hope for some luck.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

There doesn't seem to be one. Just gotta take em as they come and hope for some luck.

I think teams could do a better job of looking for BPA while keeping team needs in mind. Drafting is obviously harder than it looks but NHL teams seem to not do that balancing act very well.

Using Stanley as an example and assuming that the scene played out the way it did because Chevy had determined to go for defence, I think he should have recognized that the D man he wanted wasn't there and switched to priority #2. We had pick #22. Henrik Borgstrom went at #23. He is light years ahead of Stanley as a prospect and we still would have had 36. We could have taken Libor Hajek, Sam Girard or Kale Clague or any of several others at any position who are also probably better prospects than Stanley.

Of course, I don't know for certain that it happened because Chevy was too narrowly focused on D but it is the way it looked to me. And after I had argued for going after D too. I feel so guilty!

My point is that drafting for position shouldn't be an all or none, black or white proposition. Take BPA, but biased toward need.

 

[Whileee]

Can't argue with having talent.

My guess is that some good trades of wingers/w prospects for D/D prospects have probably been possible. I don't know why they haven't happened. I hope Chevy is not waiting for more certainty from the players he has.

To rehash some past discussions - Mason could have been kept as an expensive, but capable 1 year backup. We needed cap space so Perreault could have been moved at the draft. I won't be too ambitious on the return. Lets say, to Mtl for #38. That could have been used to take Bode Wilde, a RHD with strong top 4 upside. If Chevy still wants to get Brossoit as insurance, and maybe thinking another year ahead, fine. He can start for the Moose .... if he can take the job from Comrie. I love MP, but he is a declining asset. His body has absorbed a lot of punishment. I expect his value to only go down. We have replacement LWs in house.

We still needed a little more cap space. I think Armia would be worth a lot more than his contract but we need the space. Flames had a need for RW. They have at least partly filled that now but earlier in the off-season I think they might have been interested in Armia for Kylington. With Armia's PK skills, they still might be. Kylington is a near NHL ready LHD who also has top 4 upside.

These are just examples and of course, I have no way of knowing that the other teams would have cooperated. But I'm pretty sure that some things along those lines must have been possible.

I think that would be much better use of our wealth of wingers than using them to pay another team to take on a bad contract.

If I am mistaken, if trades like those can't be made then how are teams supposed to be able to balance their rosters? Waive good young players and sign expensive FAs who are past their primes?

Perreault gives the Jets a better chance to win this year than Bode Wilde or any other #38. Chevy has to balance now vs. future at this point, and if you have the horses that are serious Cup contenders, you would need a very strong rationale to weaken the team now to try to preserve some future assets. Presumably, the main goal is to win a Cup at this point, while decimating the future. I think the Jets have a very strong young core, and they still have a decent prospect pool. A player like Samberg might well fit into the top-4 in the future, and he's played a fair amount on RD. It was just a year or two ago that the main concern was with the Jets' LD pipeline, but now with Niku and Samberg (and maybe even Stanley), it doesn't look bad at all.

 

[Daximus]

I think teams could do a better job of looking for BPA while keeping team needs in mind. Drafting is obviously harder than it looks but NHL teams seem to not do that balancing act very well.

Using Stanley as an example and assuming that the scene played out the way it did because Chevy had determined to go for defence, I think he should have recognized that the D man he wanted wasn't there and switched to priority #2. We had pick #22. Henrik Borgstrom went at #23. He is light years ahead of Stanley as a prospect and we still would have had 36. We could have taken Libor Hajek, Sam Girard or Kale Clague or any of several others at any position who are also probably better prospects than Stanley.

Of course, I don't know for certain that it happened because Chevy was too narrowly focused on D but it is the way it looked to me. And after I had argued for going after D too. I feel so guilty!

My point is that drafting for position shouldn't be an all or none, black or white proposition. Take BPA, but biased toward need.

Yeah there is a few ways you can go about it.

1. Draft for need like the Habs did with Kotkaniemi.

2. Trade for a need but lose value like the Hall for Larsson trade.

3. Take advantage of GM's looking to go for it like the Forsberg for Erat trade.

4. Or wait it out and strike at a golden opportunity like the Jones for Johansen trade.

Ideally you want #4 but in a situation like Trouba's where we have a limited time frame, it makes it tough to come out on top of a trade.

That trade up is still a very weird one. The obviously really liked Stanley and thought that two of the other guys in the top of the draft wouldn't be equal to him. Time will still tell but it's going to be tough to pull out a win on that one.

 

[Daximus]

Perreault gives the Jets a better chance to win this year than Bode Wilde or any other #38. Chevy has to balance now vs. future at this point, and if you have the horses that are serious Cup contenders, you would need a very strong rationale to weaken the team now to try to preserve some future assets. Presumably, the main goal is to win a Cup at this point, while decimating the future. I think the Jets have a very strong young core, and they still have a decent prospect pool. A player like Samberg might well fit into the top-4 in the future, and he's played a fair amount on RD. It was just a year or two ago that the main concern was with the Jets' LD pipeline, but now with Niku and Samberg (and maybe even Stanley), it doesn't look bad at all.

I think small market teams tend to have a different view. The playoffs is likely the main goal at any given time. Playoffs generate a lot more revenue and that is good for business. The SC is probably something that a small market team like the Jets are only going to go for if a good opportunity arises. That is to go all in for it. Obviously that is the ultimate goal but I'd imagine the Jets ownership group would probably prefer 10 years of playoffs with no Cup to 1 year of a Cup and 9 years of no playoffs. It will run counter to what fans want but in the end they are a business.

 

[Whileee]

I think teams could do a better job of looking for BPA while keeping team needs in mind. Drafting is obviously harder than it looks but NHL teams seem to not do that balancing act very well.

Using Stanley as an example and assuming that the scene played out the way it did because Chevy had determined to go for defence, I think he should have recognized that the D man he wanted wasn't there and switched to priority #2. We had pick #22. Henrik Borgstrom went at #23. He is light years ahead of Stanley as a prospect and we still would have had 36. We could have taken Libor Hajek, Sam Girard or Kale Clague or any of several others at any position who are also probably better prospects than Stanley.

Of course, I don't know for certain that it happened because Chevy was too narrowly focused on D but it is the way it looked to me. And after I had argued for going after D too. I feel so guilty!

My point is that drafting for position shouldn't be an all or none, black or white proposition. Take BPA, but biased toward need.

My point is that it's almost impossible to draft for need when most prospects don't make an impression in the NHL for 4-5 years after drafting.

 

[Whileee]

I think small market teams tend to have a different view. The playoffs is likely the main goal at any given time. Playoffs generate a lot more revenue and that is good for business. The SC is probably something that a small market team like the Jets are only going to go for if a good opportunity arises. That is to go all in for it. Obviously that is the ultimate goal but I'd imagine the Jets ownership group would probably prefer 10 years of playoffs with no Cup to 1 year of a Cup and 9 years of no playoffs. It will run counter to what fans want but in the end they are a business.

Sure, but you could also consider 1 Cup and several years of playoffs. That certainly looks like a plausible scenario for the Jets, considering their current roster, young core and future assets.