2016-17 roster

[JetsFan815]

That's just your habitual negativity speaking. There has never before been such clearly superior options. And so many of them. By rights Thor should be about 4th in line to get out of the PB never mind starting.

Edit: Chevy might take the decision out of Maurice's hands if he can find a taker for Thor.

Well lets hope your are right, I'll believe it when I see it

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

I suspect it has something to do with the fact that they have played ahead of superior players for years.

I believe Thor has spent more games on the 3rd line than the 4th over the last two seasons and there have always been guys who are better than him riding pine.

Debatably better, marginally better, maybe a lttle more than that. Maybe 1 better option but now there are head and shoulders better and maybe several players better. It isn't that there weren't option before but the dufference between the options is so large, clear and inarguable.

I just get the impression that the Jets are cheap and wouldn't want anyone with one-way contracts playing in the AHL. That's why players like Thor and Stu will likely linger with the big club in some capacity.

I'm not talking about on the roster. I'm talking about on the ice. Playing. The Jets are not cheap. Sorry but that is just not true. Look at the money they keep spending. They may be careful with spending but not cheap. Burying players in the AHL. Budaj, Harrison say hello. They will when needed. Expect Peluso there this year. What is the financial difference between Stu in the press box and Stu in the AHL? This idea that we are paying him so we have to play him just doesn't stand up. The player gets paid either way.

 

[Whileee]

I suspect it has something to do with the fact that they have played ahead of superior players for years.

I believe Thor has spent more games on the 3rd line than the 4th over the last two seasons and there have always been guys who are better than him riding pine.

Thor has averaged 9:07 time on ice per game over the past two seasons.

There are 22 players who played with the Jets in the past two seasons who had higher average TOI per game.

Among forwards who played at least 40 games over the past two seasons, Thor ranks 14th in average TOI, behind Halischuk and Slater and ahead of only Copp and Peluso.

 

[garret9]

Thor has averaged 9:07 time on ice per game over the past two seasons.

There are 22 players who played with the Jets in the past two seasons who had higher average TOI per game.

Among forwards who played at least 40 games over the past two seasons, Thor ranks 14th in average TOI, behind Halischuk and Slater and ahead of only Copp and Peluso.

Still played more games on the third line than fourth line at even strength and regardless of his TOI (which skews the argument since Thor doesn't play special teams, plus bottom 6 deployment varies heavily dependent on score effects so the games on 3rd vs 4th is better indication of coaching opinion) that shouldn't have happened.

Thorburn was still playing ahead at ES at the end of the season than many of the players we are talking about passing him.

Next year is a new year and the kids will be one year older, but there's still well more than enough history for the skeptical people to be justifiably skeptical.

 

[Whileee]

Still played more games on the third line than fourth line at even strength and regardless of his TOI (which skews the argument since Thor doesn't play special teams, plus bottom 6 deployment varies heavily dependent on score effects so the games on 3rd vs 4th is better indication of coaching opinion) that shouldn't have happened.

Thorburn was still playing ahead at ES at the end of the season than many of the players we are talking about passing him.

Next year is a new year and the kids will be one year older, but there's still well more than enough history for the skeptical people to be justifiably skeptical.

It seems a bit of a semantic argument to say Thor was more of a 3rd liner. He didn't spend as much time on the ice as any of the "3rd liners" - not even close.

Fact is that Thor had 8:39 EV TOI per game. Maybe he started on 3rd line, but that is not 3rd line minutes. Even just looking at EV TOI, only Copp, Slater and Peluso had less ice-time. Halischuk averaged more TOI (EV). Third liners like Lowry and Burmi averaged 40% more EV TOI per game than Thor. That's a substantial difference any way you slice it.

 

[MrBoJangelz71]

Good D if a little expensive despite friendly contracts from both Myers and Hamonic. How the **** do we protect 5 of them from expansion draft?

That is one **** of a price you are paying. Are you sure that is only Hamonic you are getting?

With all those resources in play surely we could find a LHD somewhere. One young enough to be exempt from the expansion draft.

Never gave an ounce of a thought towards expansion, and yes we would lose a pretty solid Dman in that process.

As for the trade, I if it was 2 firsts and a prospect, then we would be getting back another piece. The trade is an overpayment in assists, but allows us to retain our top Dmen in the process. That would be, IMO on of the best 6 dman rotations in the league.

I also think a checking 4rth line with Lowry/Copp/Lemieux would be pretty solid, at some point this season.

 

[Huffer]

You aren't the only one saying things like that. You didn't mention Thor but I assume you just forgot. (Why mention Stu if not Thor?) I can see keeping Stafford until the TD. I go back and forth on that one.

I really don't get why people believe that Stu and Thor can make the starting lineup in the face of the competition there is now for their jobs. Plus how bad they have become. I just don't see it. Playing those 2 any more than limited minutes in no more than 10 games should be a firing offense by a coach. (unless he wins of course ) Add Pav to that list, assuming that we now have competition for him too.

I said "like Stafford and Stu" as in a generalization. Yes, you could put Thor in that category as well.

I certainly hope the org moves away from Stu, Thor, ET AL, and I'm generally on the positive side of the spectrum here, but I really need to see both the coaching staff and the management demonstrate their willingness to move away from these types before I say unequivocally that they will.

 

[jetsfaneh]

I said "like Stafford and Stu" as in a generalization. Yes, you could put Thor in that category as well.

I certainly hope the org moves away from Stu, Thor, ET AL, and I'm generally on the positive side of the spectrum here, but I really need to see both the coaching staff and the management demonstrate their willingness to move away from these types before I say unequivocally that they will.

Do they do it with term still left of some of these deals though? Especially Stuart with his term and $.

 

[Huffer]

Do they do it with term still left of some of these deals though? Especially Stuart with his term and $.

That's the rub. My most realistic hope is that they use Stu as a 6/7.

 

[Howard Chuck]

I said "like Stafford and Stu" as in a generalization. Yes, you could put Thor in that category as well.

I certainly hope the org moves away from Stu, Thor, ET AL, and I'm generally on the positive side of the spectrum here, but I really need to see both the coaching staff and the management demonstrate their willingness to move away from these types before I say unequivocally that they will.

I have my own personal theory that I keep in mind, probably just to make myself feel better

Here it is:

We've kept Thor/Stu etc in the lineup (and made some other otherwise questionable decisions) to ice an entertaining, but not overly competent team so that we can draft fairly high and keep our cap space (of course, many times we actually didn't have much choice). Then once we are at a point where we have filled our cupboards and have a plethora of talent knocking on the door, we open the floodgates to allow the best players to take roster spots.

I believe that this is the year that we are poised to take that next step.

This is what keeps me sane.

 

[winnipegger]

kind of old to bring back up, but if youre watching these playoffs, its extremely apparent that you NEED to have a top tier faceoff guy. Just watching this Pens game, in the last 2min the Penguins couldnt win a draw and the Caps nearly came all the way back just because they kept possession after every icing... If they are still looking to bring in a 3rd or 4th line center, I would hope theyre great on the draw.

I need to take issue with this. Sure, it would have helped to win one of those draws. It would have helped even more to get the damn puck out instead of icing it and be forced to remain on the ice. I think that situation had a lot more to do with the tiredness and ineffectiveness of the 5 man unit on the ice than the poor sap who couldn't win a draw.

Having good defensive players in general is more important than having a 'faceoff specialist' imo. Faceoffs are actually less important than a lot of people think.

 

[Whileee]

I have my own personal theory that I keep in mind, probably just to make myself feel better

Here it is:

We've kept Thor/Stu etc in the lineup (and made some other otherwise questionable decisions) to ice an entertaining, but not overly competent team so that we can draft fairly high and keep our cap space (of course, many times we actually didn't have much choice). Then once we are at a point where we have filled our cupboards and have a plethora of talent knocking on the door, we open the floodgates to allow the best players to take roster spots.

I believe that this is the year that we are poised to take that next step.

This is what keeps me sane.

I didn't find anything "entertaining" about having Stu and Thorburn in the line-up.

I've been a pretty harsh critic of Maurice's use of Thorbs, Stuart and Peluso (even though I disagree with the contention that Thorbs has been used as a "third line" player).

I still have real concerns that Maurice remains too "old school" in terms of his use of muscle and "grit". I am hoping that the skill and depth on the roster will soon push him past that predilection, but in truth I have my concerns about whether he'll change his approach.

 

[surixon]

I didn't find anything "entertaining" about having Stu and Thorburn in the line-up.

I've been a pretty harsh critic of Maurice's use of Thorbs, Stuart and Peluso (even though I disagree with the contention that Thorbs has been used as a "third line" player).

I still have real concerns that Maurice remains too "old school" in terms of his use of muscle and "grit". I am hoping that the skill and depth on the roster will soon push him past that predilection, but in truth I have my concerns about whether he'll change his approach.

Well hopefully Chevy doesn't give him the option. We can trade a guy like Thor this summer. Stuart is unfortunately a different situation and I fear that Moe will start the year with him lineup to give him a chance to redeem his play from last year....

 

[jetsfaneh]

I didn't find anything "entertaining" about having Stu and Thorburn in the line-up.

I've been a pretty harsh critic of Maurice's use of Thorbs, Stuart and Peluso (even though I disagree with the contention that Thorbs has been used as a "third line" player).

I still have real concerns that Maurice remains too "old school" in terms of his use of muscle and "grit". I am hoping that the skill and depth on the roster will soon push him past that predilection, but in truth I have my concerns about whether he'll change his approach.

If the coach wants some grit and sandpaper it would be better to use a guy that can do that and have more to his game. Some upside. Higher ceiling. Enter Brendan Lemieux. His goals per game was among the best of his league. I really want him to crack this squad next year. I think he will surprise. Maurice said he was almost ready last year. They were not expecting that.

 

[Gm0ney]

It seems a bit of a semantic argument to say Thor was more of a 3rd liner. He didn't spend as much time on the ice as any of the "3rd liners" - not even close.

Fact is that Thor had 8:39 EV TOI per game. Maybe he started on 3rd line, but that is not 3rd line minutes. Even just looking at EV TOI, only Copp, Slater and Peluso had less ice-time. Halischuk averaged more TOI (EV). Third liners like Lowry and Burmi averaged 40% more EV TOI per game than Thor. That's a substantial difference any way you slice it.

Of course Burmi and Lowry have more EV TOI/game than Thorburn. Thorbz is a part-time 3rd liner who spends half his time on the 4th line and Burmi and Lowry are both full-time 3rd liners who get bumped up to the 2nd line sometimes.

40% does sound like a "substantial difference any way you slice it", but what is it in real time? 3 extra minutes a game? 3 or 4 more shifts? Not that substantial at all, considering...

 

[buggs]

Well hopefully Chevy doesn't give him the option. We can trade a guy like Thor this summer. Stuart is unfortunately a different situation and I fear that Moe will start the year with him lineup to give him a chance to redeem his play from last year....

(not at you, at the notion if Maurice does that)

 

[Whileee]

Of course Burmi and Lowry have more EV TOI/game than Thorburn. Thorbz is a part-time 3rd liner who spends half his time on the 4th line and Burmi and Lowry are both full-time 3rd liners who get bumped up to the 2nd line sometimes.

40% does sound like a "substantial difference any way you slice it", but what is it in real time? 3 extra minutes a game? 3 or 4 more shifts? Not that substantial at all, considering...

I can't and won't defend the use of Thorbs, since I've been critical of Maurice on this point for two years.

But can we at least stay a bit fact-based on our commentary.

Among NHL forwards who played 60 or more games in the past two seasons, Thorburn ranked 404th out of 419 forwards in even-strength time-on-ice per game. He was 405/419 for all TOI per game.

Suggesting that Thorbs has been deployed more like a third-liner than a fourth-line player doesn't really ring true to me.

Maybe we can say that he's a third line forward who gets less ice time than almost every other 4th liner in the NHL.

 

[Whileee]

Well hopefully Chevy doesn't give him the option. We can trade a guy like Thor this summer. Stuart is unfortunately a different situation and I fear that Moe will start the year with him lineup to give him a chance to redeem his play from last year....

Stuart was horrible the year before, too. It would take a lot to "redeem" himself. I don't want to watch that.

 

[surixon]

Stuart was horrible the year before, too. It would take a lot to "redeem" himself. I don't want to watch that.

I don't think anyone does. I just have the inclination that Moe will give him that undeserved courtesy for being a vet.

 

[csk]

Well hopefully Chevy doesn't give him the option. We can trade a guy like Thor this summer. Stuart is unfortunately a different situation and I fear that Moe will start the year with him lineup to give him a chance to redeem his play from last year....

I thought that was last season.

 

[Blue Shakehead]

I really don't get why people believe that Stu and Thor can make the starting lineup in the face of the competition there is now for their jobs. Plus how bad they have become. I just don't see it. Playing those 2 any more than limited minutes in no more than 10 games should be a firing offense by a coach. (unless he wins of course ) Add Pav to that list, assuming that we now have competition for him too.

You really don't get why people believe that Stu, Thor or Pavs can make the starting lineup? What have you been watching these past five years? In his year-end presser, Maurice said he's been talking with Chevy about potential captains for next year and the candidates are Wheeler, Scheifele and Stuart.

The fact of the matter is, there has been competition available for goaltending, LHD and bottom 6 depth every single offseason since 2012 for league minimum salaries and even within our own lineup and our management group has not done anything to add that competition to the roster. In the case of Stuart and Thorburn, when their contracts expired, they were renewed on long term deals. That is, quite frankly, amazing.

Internally, how many preseason games did Morrissey and Hellebuyck get into last year? Postma gets into about 8 games per calendar year and he's ten times the player that Stuart is.

Odds are that Stuart, Thorburn and Pavelec will all be on the starting roster next year. The only reason we'd keep them off is hope, not evidence.

Debatably better, marginally better, maybe a lttle more than that. Maybe 1 better option but now there are head and shoulders better and maybe several players better. It isn't that there weren't option before but the dufference between the options is so large, clear and inarguable.

How are you defining better? Mark Stuart played the lockout in the ECHL and was probably average. How many defenseman in the ECHL/KHL/SEL/AHL/NHL are better than Mark Stuart? I'd say at least 200.

Thorburn has been outperformed by virtually everyone that has put on a Jets jersey in the last 5 years - from the Machaceks/O'Dells to the Tim Stapleton's/Halischuk's and various waiver wire scrubs. The only player that I am comfortable putting behind Thorburn is Anthony Peluso. Yet, there he is - signing contract extensions and playing 70+ games per year while better players ride the busses in the ECHL.

I'm not talking about on the roster. I'm talking about on the ice. Playing. The Jets are not cheap. Sorry but that is just not true. Look at the money they keep spending. They may be careful with spending but not cheap. Burying players in the AHL. Budaj, Harrison say hello. They will when needed. Expect Peluso there this year. What is the financial difference between Stu in the press box and Stu in the AHL? This idea that we are paying him so we have to play him just doesn't stand up. The player gets paid either way.

The financial difference is you have to replace that player with an NHL salary. So it's Stuart's salary in the AHL + hypothetical new guy's NHL salary. And there is no way Cheapman is doing that!

Also, Im not convinced that Chevy thinks that Stuart is bad and needs replacing. There is nothing that Chevy has ever said or done (including signing him to a four year contract) that suggests he thinks Mark Stuart is a problem.

 

[Gm0ney]

I can't and won't defend the use of Thorbs, since I've been critical of Maurice on this point for two years.

But can we at least stay a bit fact-based on our commentary.

Among NHL forwards who played 60 or more games in the past two seasons, Thorburn ranked 404th out of 419 forwards in even-strength time-on-ice per game. He was 405/419 for all TOI per game.

Suggesting that Thorbs has been deployed more like a third-liner than a fourth-line player doesn't really ring true to me.

Maybe we can say that he's a third line forward who gets less ice time than almost every other 4th liner in the NHL.

I don't know if any coach plays his fourth line less than Maurice though. The 418th and 419th guys on that list are Slater and Peluso. 414th is Copp. Thorbz is getting an extra 2 minutes per game over the Jets' 4th line avg. If he's playing half his games on the 4th and half on the 3rd, and his 4th line minutes are ES 6:43/game, then to get to 8:39/game he's playing 10:30 in his 3rd line games.

 

[Whileee]

I don't know if any coach plays his fourth line less than Maurice though. The 418th and 419th guys on that list are Slater and Peluso. 414th is Copp. Thorbz is getting an extra 2 minutes per game over the Jets' 4th line avg. If he's playing half his games on the 4th and half on the 3rd, and his 4th line minutes are ES 6:43/game, then to get to 8:39/game he's playing 10:30 in his 3rd line games.

It's a bit of a silly discussion... if he's playing 10:30 EV in his "3rd line games", that's 2-3 minutes less than other 3rd liners like Burmi and Lowry, who also kill penalties.

He played less even-strength than Halischuk, and about 30 seconds more than Galiardi (who played almost 1.5 minutes more per game overall than Thorbs). Are they "3rd liners" too?

Maurice uses Thorbs too much, because he shouldn't really use him at all. He too often gives him 3rd line minutes in a game (as Garret pointed out).

It's a blind spot for Maurice that I don't like one bit.

 

[Flair Hay]

I honestly wouldn't mind a whole lot if Thorburn is on the 4th line instead of Petan or Lemieux so they can play AHL.

We have 4 guys capable of playing C or wing in bottom six. We have Connor, Dano, Armia on top of that. Then there's Thorburn.

I'm not gonna sweat it, as we are closer to having the depth we had in 14-15 when he was the 13th forward.

 

[Blue Shakehead]

It's a bit of a silly discussion... if he's playing 10:30 EV in his "3rd line games", that's 2-3 minutes less than other 3rd liners like Burmi and Lowry, who also kill penalties.

He played less even-strength than Halischuk, and about 30 seconds more than Galiardi (who played almost 1.5 minutes more per game overall than Thorbs). Are they "3rd liners" too?

Maurice uses Thorbs too much, because he shouldn't really use him at all. He too often gives him 3rd line minutes in a game (as Garret pointed out).

It's a blind spot for Maurice that I don't like one bit.

Maurice uses Thorburn like Noel used Thorburn. Instead of lettting him walk as a UFA, Chevy made the decision to re-sign him to a 3 year contract. Just like Stuart before him and Peluso last year. If Maurice has a blind spot, Chevy is legally blind.