Alex Nylander

[JaegerDice]

He will be forever compared to an inflated evaltuation of Jokiharju.*

There is a reason these two went for each other.

Come on.

I'm not saying Joker is the next Lidstrom, but the idea that players exchanged in a 1for1 deal are always equal is crazy.

Hall and Larson were exchanged 1for1.

Saad and Panarin were exchanged 1for1.

Jones and Johansen were exchanged 1for1.

Forsberg and Erat were exchanged 1for1.

I could go on.

Just cause two guys were exchanged doesn't make their value equal.

I think Joker and Boqvist are very different Dmen that will end up in the same place. 2nd-to-3rd pair guys. #3 through #5.

Ultimately the team felt that Boqvist had the higher upside and wanted the path cleared for him. I say 'why not both?', and I don't think Nylander is much more than a #9 forward.

 

[Muffinalt]

Come on.

I'm not saying Joker is the next Lidstrom, but the idea that players exchanged in a 1for1 deal are always equal is crazy.

Hall and Larson were exchanged 1for1.

Saad and Panarin were exchanged 1for1.

Jones and Johansen were exchanged 1for1.

Forsberg and Erat were exchanged 1for1.

I could go on.

Just cause two guys were exchanged doesn't make their value equal.

I think Joker and Boqvist are very different Dmen that will end up in the same place. 2nd-to-3rd pair guys. #3 through #5.

Ultimately the team felt that Boqvist had the higher upside and wanted the path cleared for him. I say 'why not both?', and I don't think Nylander is much more than a #9 forward.

No what I meant was one guy with question marks was traded for another guy with question marks. Not one sure fire good guy for a sure fire bad guy.

Ultimately Joki could end up the better, more valuable player when compared to Nylander, but projecting him to end up the same level as Boqvist is exactly my point. It's an inflated picture of the guy.

I'm still convinced many who are grading this trade still think of the first 10 games Jokiharju and have not watched the incredibly vanilla performance he has put on since.

We traded a low floor for a risky high ceiling (which for now looks to be unachievable), but we didn't trade a Boqvist like prospect, or a Mitchell like prospect at all.

 

[ChiHawk21]

we have and have had one of the worse defensive teams in the league for 3+ years. trading a quality 20 year old defenseman for a lotto ticket is not how i would build a team. bowman tried to win now by bringing in maatta and shaw that failed. now we have to move forward without a good piece. we got stuck inbetween rebuilding and going for it and we are kind of still there but farther along because of euro free agents and lottery luck.

 

[Kaners Bald Spot]

Come on.

I'm not saying Joker is the next Lidstrom, but the idea that players exchanged in a 1for1 deal are always equal is crazy.

Hall and Larson were exchanged 1for1.

Saad and Panarin were exchanged 1for1.

Jones and Johansen were exchanged 1for1.

Forsberg and Erat were exchanged 1for1.

I could go on.

Just cause two guys were exchanged doesn't make their value equal.

I think Joker and Boqvist are very different Dmen that will end up in the same place. 2nd-to-3rd pair guys. #3 through #5.

Ultimately the team felt that Boqvist had the higher upside and wanted the path cleared for him. I say 'why not both?', and I don't think Nylander is much more than a #9 forward.

If Boqvist and Mitchell are 2nd pairing D the Hawks are f***ed.

Jokiharju and Boqvist aren't the same level of prospect though.

 

[ploppsdman]

Let this sink in: He is an offensive only winger who has 86 points in 165 AHL games. AND he felt entitled to be in the NHL when he was with Buffalo.

This was a terrible trade and thankfully I don’t see much playing time left for Nylander whenever the NHL starts their next season.

He fails the eye test; he fails the stats test. I don’t know how many more tests he needs to fail. If this guy was a third round pick no one would care. We need to take out where he was drafted from the equation.

 

[hockeydoug]

we have and have had one of the worse defensive teams in the league for 3+ years. trading a quality 20 year old defenseman for a lotto ticket is not how i would build a team. bowman tried to win now by bringing in maatta and shaw that failed. now we have to move forward without a good piece. we got stuck inbetween rebuilding and going for it and we are kind of still there but farther along because of euro free agents and lottery luck.

But that's kind of the point, what kind of quality?

They don't need a situational number 4-5 rd, that's not going to help this team going forward. Worse yet, why risk losing him for nothing?

Let this sink in: He is an offensive only winger who has 86 points in 165 AHL games. AND he felt entitled to be in the NHL when he was with Buffalo.

This was a terrible trade and thankfully I don’t see much playing time left for Nylander whenever the NHL starts their next season.

He fails the eye test; he fails the stats test. I don’t know how many more tests he needs to fail. If this guy was a third round pick no one would care. We need to take out where he was drafted from the equation.

There have only been a handful of 18 year olds in the AHL in the last 30 years, it's a terrible place to develop undersized high skill players that age.

Don't hold AHL stats against him, and he was hurt coming into year 2. Buffalo is a trainwreck for development and they mishandled the guy no matter what happens. Whether or not the Hawks were smart to take on a rehab project is a different question. Giving up a limited number 4-5 RD that may have been lost for nothing wasn't a bad strategy. Maybe they missed on Nylander, but I'll agree with the approach given where the Hawks were at last summer.

 

[LordKOTL]

He will be forever compared to an inflated evaltuation of Jokiharju.*

There is a reason these two went for each other.

Based on how I comprehend this post--I disagree.

I projected Joker to be a top-4 coming out of Portland, and I don't think that is far off. It might be less 1-2 and more 3-4, but I still think he's be a good middle pair guy and he didn't look that far out of place--In fact, defensively he looked no worse than Boqvist (and yes, Boqvist has O upside from Joker).

Now, to be equivalent, Nylander as a FWD should be somewhere like a 2nd or 3rd line player, but at the time of the trade he had very little NHL experience and I seem to recall the book on him was his engagement--so he was a risk. Talent? sure, he has the tools, but he has issues bringing them to bear night/in-night/out-0-which is how we scouted him at the trade. Nothing has changed.

Joker would have been a safer bet--but again, he's an exposure risk to Seattle. So I get the trade. What I don't get is Stan's mentality on a 1:1 for it. Chicago had an NHL-proven young defender who's likely to hit mid-pair projection and traded him for an unproven player that at-best is a top-6, at worst is not an NHL'er, and is likely a line 2/3 winger contingent on work ethic. Further, the other D prospects at the time have never stepped on NHL ice. That's a gamble and one so far that doesn't look good because of Nylander's work ethic. I think Stan could have wrangled a conditional draft pick out of the trade as well. Instead his did his best horse-trading act about how the 'hawks were going to turn Nylander around like we did Strome to sell the fans on him--as well as his family pedigree. I'm not seeing it yet.

 

[ploppsdman]

Why do we keep blaming Buffalo’s development system? Can’t it just be Nylander is not an NHLer?

 

[BobbyJet]

Based on how I comprehend this post--I disagree.

I projected Joker to be a top-4 coming out of Portland, and I don't think that is far off. It might be less 1-2 and more 3-4, but I still think he's be a good middle pair guy and he didn't look that far out of place--In fact, defensively he looked no worse than Boqvist (and yes, Boqvist has O upside from Joker).

Now, to be equivalent, Nylander as a FWD should be somewhere like a 2nd or 3rd line player, but at the time of the trade he had very little NHL experience and I seem to recall the book on him was his engagement--so he was a risk. Talent? sure, he has the tools, but he has issues bringing them to bear night/in-night/out-0-which is how we scouted him at the trade. Nothing has changed.

Joker would have been a safer bet--but again, he's an exposure risk to Seattle. So I get the trade. What I don't get is Stan's mentality on a 1:1 for it. Chicago had an NHL-proven young defender who's likely to hit mid-pair projection and traded him for an unproven player that at-best is a top-6, at worst is not an NHL'er, and is likely a line 2/3 winger contingent on work ethic. Further, the other D prospects at the time have never stepped on NHL ice. That's a gamble and one so far that doesn't look good because of Nylander's work ethic. I think Stan could have wrangled a conditional draft pick out of the trade as well. Instead his did his best horse-trading act about how the 'hawks were going to turn Nylander around like we did Strome to sell the fans on him--as well as his family pedigree. I'm not seeing it yet.

Of course, he's young and is bound to get better with experience but when it comes to Jokiharju's play (that I have seen) I don't see where all the accolades are coming from.

 

[BobbyJet]

Why do we keep blaming Buffalo’s development system? Can’t it just be Nylander is not an NHLer?

Hawks need to assign Nylander to a sports psychologist prior to next season. He's got to realize that he is not Patrick Kane - to survive in this league he will need to use his good size better and be engaged on both sides of the puck.

 

[Section88]

Come on.

I'm not saying Joker is the next Lidstrom, but the idea that players exchanged in a 1for1 deal are always equal is crazy.

Hall and Larson were exchanged 1for1.

Saad and Panarin were exchanged 1for1.

Jones and Johansen were exchanged 1for1.

Forsberg and Erat were exchanged 1for1.

I could go on.

Just cause two guys were exchanged doesn't make their value equal.

I think Joker and Boqvist are very different Dmen that will end up in the same place. 2nd-to-3rd pair guys. #3 through #5.

Ultimately the team felt that Boqvist had the higher upside and wanted the path cleared for him. I say 'why not both?', and I don't think Nylander is much more than a #9 forward.

Saad and panarin wasnt a 1for1 trade. We got forsberg and a dman with saad.

 

[Toews2Bickell]

Hawks need to assign Nylander to a sports psychologist prior to next season. He's got to realize that he is not Patrick Kane - to survive in this league he will need to use his good size better and be engaged on both sides of the puck.

The things you point out are things JC has said in the past that Nylander needs to do to be effective in the NHL...and it's clear from the elimination game benching that JC doesn't think Nylander is there yet...It's on the org to realize as well that maybe his offensive game will never quite develop to match their original expectations and now it's time to start to craft him into a different kind of player that can stick around and help them win games long term..and if Nylander doesn't commit to that then he will be gone by the end of next year and sent to some rebuilding team for a prospect like Perlini...

 

[Muffinalt]

Based on how I comprehend this post--I disagree.

I projected Joker to be a top-4 coming out of Portland, and I don't think that is far off. It might be less 1-2 and more 3-4, but I still think he's be a good middle pair guy and he didn't look that far out of place--In fact, defensively he looked no worse than Boqvist (and yes, Boqvist has O upside from Joker).

Now, to be equivalent, Nylander as a FWD should be somewhere like a 2nd or 3rd line player, but at the time of the trade he had very little NHL experience and I seem to recall the book on him was his engagement--so he was a risk. Talent? sure, he has the tools, but he has issues bringing them to bear night/in-night/out-0-which is how we scouted him at the trade. Nothing has changed.

Joker would have been a safer bet--but again, he's an exposure risk to Seattle. So I get the trade. What I don't get is Stan's mentality on a 1:1 for it. Chicago had an NHL-proven young defender who's likely to hit mid-pair projection and traded him for an unproven player that at-best is a top-6, at worst is not an NHL'er, and is likely a line 2/3 winger contingent on work ethic. Further, the other D prospects at the time have never stepped on NHL ice. That's a gamble and one so far that doesn't look good because of Nylander's work ethic. I think Stan could have wrangled a conditional draft pick out of the trade as well. Instead his did his best horse-trading act about how the 'hawks were going to turn Nylander around like we did Strome to sell the fans on him--as well as his family pedigree. I'm not seeing it yet.

You and me hold a different opinion of Jokiharju.

I guess the trade was always a gamble because Nylander's floor is so low. But his ceiling is equally high, so if he wasn't such a volatile prospect he wouldn't have been in the block to begin with.

I really don't mind big game hunting this way every once in a while. Especially by trading from a position where we have two legit stud prospects anyway.

 

[Kaners Bald Spot]

You and me hold a different opinion of Jokiharju.

I guess the trade was always a gamble because Nylander's floor is so low. But his ceiling is equally high, so if he wasn't such a volatile prospect he wouldn't have been in the block to begin with.

I really don't mind big game hunting this way every once in a while. Especially by trading from a position where we have two legit stud prospects anyway.

Ding ding ding.

 

[Dr Salt]

I feel somewhat better about the trade this year. Yes Nylander still has ways to go, but Buffalo is shooting themselves in the foot in terms of being able to run away with it.

 

[LordKOTL]

You and me hold a different opinion of Jokiharju.

I guess the trade was always a gamble because Nylander's floor is so low. But his ceiling is equally high, so if he wasn't such a volatile prospect he wouldn't have been in the block to begin with.

I really don't mind big game hunting this way every once in a while. Especially by trading from a position where we have two legit stud prospects anyway.

My opinion is different about prospects: None are guaranteed--especially those who never stepped foot on NHL ice yet and at the time of the trade, none of Boqvist, Beaudin, or Mitchell have stepped foot on NHL ice. They could be Keith, or they could be Barker (or anything in-between). We, at the time, just didn't know and in many cases still don't know.

So that being said, even if Joker was an exposure risk, I would think that Stan would try to mitigate the profit/loss of a better known D for a risky FWD taking into consideration that the D prospects may or may not pan out. Ergo, I think Joker had a bit more value than Nylander and thus he could have gotten more--even something like a conditional pick. I seriously think that if Stan went "Big Game Hunting" for Nylander, he could have gotten an additional pick--especially a deep one/conditional one. That way if Nylander is a bust, we have a shot to make up for it. If Joker ends up being better than even one of the big 3 D prospects (and yes this is a possibility--none of us are Nostradamus; in fact, we couldn't even pass for Miss Cleo), again, we could more easily mitigate the potential loss. As it is, though, the trade is contingent on Nylander being a success--which right now means a heart transplant for Nylander, or all three of Boqvist/Beaudin/Mitchell panning out for at least middle pair.

 

[Malaka]

The jungle that is the AHL, where it’s every man for themselves playing for their livelihood, is not where you should be evaluating playmaking wingers based on statistics. I still think he has a long way to go but he can be an impact player

 

[nmgrbhfn]

Per minute on ice Nylander produced the same pointwise as Saad. If Nylander just focuses on his defensive game and takes the body more he could do a reasonable facsimile of Saad's game. Throw in that he has better hands than Saad he could have a breakout year, especially if he plays with more physically gifted linemates.

 

[Muffinalt]

My opinion is different about prospects: None are guaranteed--especially those who never stepped foot on NHL ice yet and at the time of the trade, none of Boqvist, Beaudin, or Mitchell have stepped foot on NHL ice. They could be Keith, or they could be Barker (or anything in-between). We, at the time, just didn't know and in many cases still don't know.

So that being said, even if Joker was an exposure risk, I would think that Stan would try to mitigate the profit/loss of a better known D for a risky FWD taking into consideration that the D prospects may or may not pan out. Ergo, I think Joker had a bit more value than Nylander and thus he could have gotten more--even something like a conditional pick. I seriously think that if Stan went "Big Game Hunting" for Nylander, he could have gotten an additional pick--especially a deep one/conditional one. That way if Nylander is a bust, we have a shot to make up for it. If Joker ends up being better than even one of the big 3 D prospects (and yes this is a possibility--none of us are Nostradamus; in fact, we couldn't even pass for Miss Cleo), again, we could more easily mitigate the potential loss. As it is, though, the trade is contingent on Nylander being a success--which right now means a heart transplant for Nylander, or all three of Boqvist/Beaudin/Mitchell panning out for at least middle pair.

Yeah i guess a conditional mid round pick couldve been negotiated maybe, based on the riskiness of Nylander. Who knows if that was in the discussions.

But also lets wait and see if Joki ever becomes anything more than a bottom pairing dman, coz those are easy to replace. I have my doubts.

 

[BobbyJet]

Per minute on ice Nylander produced the same pointwise as Saad. If Nylander just focuses on his defensive game and takes the body more he could do a reasonable facsimile of Saad's game. Throw in that he has better hands than Saad he could have a breakout year, especially if he plays with more physically gifted linemates.

A lot of wishful "what ifs" but it would be nice, yes.

He's no Hossa but Saad doesn't get nearly the respect that he deserves.

 

[BuddyTheGoon]

Throw in that he has better hands than Saad he could have a breakout year,

I just question his "Hockey IQ". Inexplicably pulling up on rushes and moving to the boards instead of the net, passing into double coverage. Most frustrating player to watch in a loooong time.

 

[TheDachKnight]

I still like Nylander. He showed promise late in the season playing with Strome and Kane. That line was absolutely dominant for the last several games of the season before Covid forced the stoppage. He needs to get stronger. If he commits to that and plays a responsible game defensively, I think there’s a good player there. Maybe a Saad-like player that protects the puck and helps possession while playing a good defensive game. He’s only 22. Not every player is a star at 22 years old. Not saying he’ll end up a star, but to give up on him after just one season seems a bit silly.

 

[Marotte Marauder]

Per minute on ice Nylander produced the same pointwise as Saad. If Nylander just focuses on his defensive game and takes the body more he could do a reasonable facsimile of Saad's game. Throw in that he has better hands than Saad he could have a breakout year, especially if he plays with more physically gifted linemates.

Nylander was not playing against the same competition as Saad.

 

[Brightwing]

I still like Nylander. He showed promise late in the season playing with Strome and Kane. That line was absolutely dominant for the last several games of the season before Covid forced the stoppage. He needs to get stronger. If he commits to that and plays a responsible game defensively, I think there’s a good player there. Maybe a Saad-like player that protects the puck and helps possession while playing a good defensive game. He’s only 22. Not every player is a star at 22 years old. Not saying he’ll end up a star, but to give up on him after just one season seems a bit silly.

I agree with you and to add to that part of the 'long leash' Nylander got is he seems so close but not quite there and I have a feeling the Hawks were trying to get him over that next hump and it just didn't happen. It's the same reason DeBrincat was on PP1 so long this year before he was finally replaced.

 

[nmgrbhfn]

Nylander was not playing against the same competition as Saad.

Nylander didn't play with the same level of talent as Saad most of the time, and when he did play with talent he put up some points. Plus, he has better hands than Saad and would have even more points if the Hawks can upgrade the skill level of their third and fourth lines. Those looking to write off Nylander forget that he could do things with the puck that no one else on his line could do when he played on the fourth line. The Hawks need scoring depth, and even a 15 - 25 - 40 year from Nylander from the third or fourth line would do that.