What do you consider the Jets from 2011-2016? They also were bottom 10 team the 3 years prior to relocating.
Rumor: All Purpose Trade Proposals, Speculation and Rumours - 2023/24
- Thread starter Mortimer Snerd
- Start date
-
Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
- Status
tbcwpg
Moderator
- Jan 25, 2011
- 16,820
- 20,606
I consider them a team on an upward trajectory that had some key pieces already in place (Buff, Ladd, Little, Enstrom, Wheeler). I didn't follow them prior to 2011 so I can't really speak too much to that. I think some ownership uncertainty made it difficult.
The organization also was a little unlucky with also a unforced error in Bogo over Piet with the 3 previous draft picks before we obtained the team. None of Kane, Bogo and Burmi ended up being franchise players despite their draft position.
Bruins will very likely have an interest in Lindholm and Scheifele. Whether they make a trade, and for whom, will depend not only on their player preference, but also on the trade cost, and cap implications now and in the future. If Scheifele is really keen on the Bruins, he could increase the chances of a trade by offering to sign a good-value deal with them. Lindholm would have to make the same calculation. The Jets might have more room to retain salary or take on salary, which would also enhance trade value.
Regardless, Bergeron's retirement probably does open up a C spot in the overall trade market.
I still wonder if the Canes are interested in Scheifele or Lindholm to strengthen their C position.
Regardless, Bergeron's retirement probably does open up a C spot in the overall trade market.
I still wonder if the Canes are interested in Scheifele or Lindholm to strengthen their C position.
- Mar 10, 2010
- 35,788
- 34,918
It’s a possibility for sure. I assume Boston will want to fill a centre void now that they have the cap space. Some on our board think we might be going for it this year with Schief now but if he isn’t extending my belief is Chevy will still want to make a hockey trade if he can. That was the chatter from insiders after the season so I would be surprised if Chevy isn’t still working on it. If the market for Mark remains soft then you play that hand.
Last edited:
BobTheSolarsystem
Registered User
- Oct 4, 2020
- 11,336
- 17,994
That's as much a testimony to Atlanta's garbage development system though... Bogo had a much higher ceiling - I recall him being compared to Doughty
Atlanta never stopped over-estimating their prospects - and fkd all of them up...
My guess is both Helly and Scheifele aren't moving off they want to get paid on their UFA deals. There are no team friendly deals happening that help facilitate trades. Chevy ultimately is left with rental level trades for both IMO.
- Mar 10, 2010
- 35,788
- 34,918
I assume that is the current state of affairs. We shall see if that is how it remains. I am pretty much prepared for whatever happens.
It`s nice to see you put this squarely into the broader context of the overall trade market Whileee. I sometimes think we all dismiss how much this market changes over the course of time, for any number of reasons . Players may outright resign as per Bergeron/ they may grossly underperform expectations after the season starts/ or they may unexpectedly get severely injured, and positions of GM`s change, sometimes dramatically.
Chevy`s challenge will be to sort out the ever changing market opportunities and act decisively when things align in the Jets best interests.
JetsFan815
Replacement Level Poster
- Jan 16, 2012
- 19,805
- 26,090
Boston is another example of avoiding giving out 1st round picks like candy even for a bigger market. If they had held on to those two 1sts, they could easily have gotten a guy like Scheifele, Lindholm or some other C. Or at the very least used those picks to dump some cap to sign Duchene.
BobTheSolarsystem
Registered User
- Oct 4, 2020
- 11,336
- 17,994
They got Bert and Orlov and couldn't afford to keep them - they tried.... not their fault Toronto is ignoring the cap
I wouldn't trade Scheif or Lindholm for a package of Boston's first - 2024 looks really blah... everyone wants roster players who are RFA
Do you have Namestnikov in fantasy or something? The infatuation to have this guy be a top 6er is so odd. Guy hasn't cleared 40 pts in 5+ years. Scheifele is still the best and surest player at center on this team.
BobTheSolarsystem
Registered User
- Oct 4, 2020
- 11,336
- 17,994
Yeah it does sound crazy, I'll admit that... but given that Cole Perfetti has taken 12 draws and Namestnikov 2400 in the NHL, I do have him pencilled in at 2C.
And as I've said about 100x now, I'd platoon Scheif and Vilardi at 1C but I honestly think Scheif scores way more at 1RW.
Teams that have gone from being a bottom dweller to a long term, top quality team, with staying power, what was the key to doing that and how do we get there?
Think Pittsburgh, Detroit, not such a hot spot to live, especially if you're a 24 year old, high quality hockey player, with your sites on a $50+M contract.
Sure I've heard of Crosby, Malkin, Yzerman, Lidstrom but that takes great scouting, incredible drafting, a pile of losses and lottery luck.
Or is it, we become a blue/white collar team like the Carolina Hurricanes and focus on the forecheck and defensive game? Good goaltending. Hit on a couple of key mid to later draft picks. Be a team with balance throughout the lineup, high energy and a disciplined approach, that is well coached. A few moderate stars. Very tough to play against and did I say disciplined. I think Jet fans could appreciate that type of team/ Squeeze into the playoffs and run the table!
So if we can't attract a top 5 player at any position in free agency, that is unless we are a team on the edge of winning. We need to get there first. We need to rethink who we are going to be.
Your thoughts for a summer discussion?
Think Pittsburgh, Detroit, not such a hot spot to live, especially if you're a 24 year old, high quality hockey player, with your sites on a $50+M contract.
Sure I've heard of Crosby, Malkin, Yzerman, Lidstrom but that takes great scouting, incredible drafting, a pile of losses and lottery luck.
Or is it, we become a blue/white collar team like the Carolina Hurricanes and focus on the forecheck and defensive game? Good goaltending. Hit on a couple of key mid to later draft picks. Be a team with balance throughout the lineup, high energy and a disciplined approach, that is well coached. A few moderate stars. Very tough to play against and did I say disciplined. I think Jet fans could appreciate that type of team/ Squeeze into the playoffs and run the table!
So if we can't attract a top 5 player at any position in free agency, that is unless we are a team on the edge of winning. We need to get there first. We need to rethink who we are going to be.
Your thoughts for a summer discussion?
tbcwpg
Moderator
- Jan 25, 2011
- 16,820
- 20,606
Players will sign somewhere to play with elite talent. Detroit and Pittsburgh aren't bad markets, they're midsized American (a key factor) cities. Detroit as a city is on the resurgence right now, but even so, playing with Crosby/Malkin/Letang/Fleury was an easy sell, as is playing with Yzerman and Lidstrom, then Datsyuk. The Red Wings especially had some great scouting but they are a hockey town with a history of winning. Teams want to play with winners.
You might notice that the prairie teams have been getting a bit of a bad rap this year about players wanting out and being on NTCs, but you don't hear about that with Edmonton because they have McDavid and Draisaitl. People want to play with those guys.
As for a team like Carolina, as their roster stands right now, of their top 12 forwards, only 4 were drafted (Aho, Necas, Drury, and Jarvis). Aho was 35th overall, so technically a 2nd rounder, Drury went 42nd, Necas went 12th, and Jarvis also went 12th. On D, again, 2 draftees, Slavin at 120 and Pesce at 66. So only 6 players were drafted by the team. I give them credit for some of their trades, they also don't spend at the deadline. They take on a lot of reclamation projects and the culture there makes it work. Having a long time former Cane there as the coach I think is a big help.
I do like the Carolina model most out of any of the other teams in the league. That said, I do think they have an advantage of being in a warmer, US market where they'd have anonymity. But if you're going to model your team building around any team it would be them. That said, they had some good fortune that Aho turned out at the level he did.
Carolina is interesting to me because I think that more often than not, the team that wins the Cup has been a playoff performer for a number of years and not one that just jumped into the playoffs out of nowhere. One team that has been talked about as a Cup favourite seemingly every year recently has been Carolina and they always seem to underperfom in the playoffs. This year they actually went to the 3rd round and couldn't get past that barrier again. I was listening to NHL Radio on Sirius a lot during the playoffs and they posited that the style of play they employ is draining on the team and makes them run out of gas a bit at the end of the year. I'm unsure about that but I can imagine playing a grindy game would take more of a physical toll than other styles.
I think TNSE believe the best path to being a successful off-ice organization is for the team to be relevant in the playoff discussion from year to year. I think they believe a rebuild in the traditional sense would be much longer here than in some other US based markets (and they're the only Canadian team in the Central so those are the markets to compare to), and it would hurt the bottom line - until evidence shows me otherwise, fans don't pay to watch a bad team lose a lot no matter how onboard with the idea of rebuilding they are. They also want to increase the proportion of business owned season tickets and losing for 5-7 years isn't going to accomplish that goal.
Just some random thoughts. I've spent more time than I should've thinking about the merits of a rebuild, a "retool", or trying to be as competitive as possible in a market like Winnipeg and have a lot of opinions on the topic.
- Mar 10, 2010
- 35,788
- 34,918
To the OP unless there is an ownership change TNSE will not rethink the way they go about their business.
Since they arrived from Atlanta they have always tried to compete now without totally selling out the future but are willing to find the balance and this is during a time when demand was through the roof. The one exception was after getting swept by the Ducks TNSE admitted they didn’t have what it takes so they decided to take a half step back for one season and play their younger players?? I have no idea what was in the drinking water that off season. Since then we had our rise to 2017-19 then our step back to a bubble team level which is ok by TNSE standards.
Going forward I do not believe Mark will ever endorse a full rebuild because he can’t afford it or is scared of what it might do. They will start out every season with the goal to make the playoffs and buy at the deadline if we are in and sell pending UFA’s they can’t or don’t want to extend if they are out of the playoff race. It is very likely this approach, combined with this not being a destination for UFA’s, will results in us not being good enough to win the cup but its not like the Jets are alone, lots of NHL teams approach it this way trying to ”just make it in and anything can happen“ every year.
I shared some ideas in Whileee’s thread on this topic around ideas of how to approach it differently but I am comfortable that none of those ideas will be implanted by a Chipman owned team. If I buy tickets to support this team I am coming to piece with the notion that a Stanley cup is not why I am doing it. It’s not about the ultimate destination, Its for entertainment purposes and enjoying the moment of the NHL hockey event.
To be clear I am not being synical, sarcastic, or defeatist. I am just trying to get my expectations aligned with the organizational stratagy and how effective I think it will ultimately be in regards to how high up the mountain I think we will get. I am not discounting we might have that once in a two decade run like Calgary, Edmonton, Ottawa, Or the Habs had.
The key is no matter how much we post here it remains an uncontrollable variable for me. I have to either come to piece with how Mark runs his organization or stop watching and attending if it bugs me too much since it is a hobby. As of today I am choosing to lower my expectations and try to enjoy watching games while we still have a team.
Since they arrived from Atlanta they have always tried to compete now without totally selling out the future but are willing to find the balance and this is during a time when demand was through the roof. The one exception was after getting swept by the Ducks TNSE admitted they didn’t have what it takes so they decided to take a half step back for one season and play their younger players?? I have no idea what was in the drinking water that off season. Since then we had our rise to 2017-19 then our step back to a bubble team level which is ok by TNSE standards.
Going forward I do not believe Mark will ever endorse a full rebuild because he can’t afford it or is scared of what it might do. They will start out every season with the goal to make the playoffs and buy at the deadline if we are in and sell pending UFA’s they can’t or don’t want to extend if they are out of the playoff race. It is very likely this approach, combined with this not being a destination for UFA’s, will results in us not being good enough to win the cup but its not like the Jets are alone, lots of NHL teams approach it this way trying to ”just make it in and anything can happen“ every year.
I shared some ideas in Whileee’s thread on this topic around ideas of how to approach it differently but I am comfortable that none of those ideas will be implanted by a Chipman owned team. If I buy tickets to support this team I am coming to piece with the notion that a Stanley cup is not why I am doing it. It’s not about the ultimate destination, Its for entertainment purposes and enjoying the moment of the NHL hockey event.
To be clear I am not being synical, sarcastic, or defeatist. I am just trying to get my expectations aligned with the organizational stratagy and how effective I think it will ultimately be in regards to how high up the mountain I think we will get. I am not discounting we might have that once in a two decade run like Calgary, Edmonton, Ottawa, Or the Habs had.
The key is no matter how much we post here it remains an uncontrollable variable for me. I have to either come to piece with how Mark runs his organization or stop watching and attending if it bugs me too much since it is a hobby. As of today I am choosing to lower my expectations and try to enjoy watching games while we still have a team.
I look at it like there is more then one way to win in this league. I personally would have no issue with a couple of year trip to the bottom but I can understand the reluctance in ownership to do so. The scorched earth rebuild has only worked quickly in high desirable markets.
Chicago, Pittsburgh, LA, Tampa.
Has it really worked well in less desirable markets?
Edmonton's rebuild started in 2009 when they dropped into the top 10. They then had 3 first overall picks in a row, plus a 7th overall, 4th overall and then McDavid, then another 4th overall. That is 8 years of putrid awful team performance. They have a team with a high water mark of what we accomished with a non tank based strategy. Was it really worth it?
Buffalo hasn't made the playoffs in well over a decade undergoing a couple tanks.
Vancouver another market that tried a bottom out rebuild and it hasn't done much.
Do you think we'd fair any better in our market?
I think there are reasons teams like the Preds, Blues, and Canes don't tank. They know they'd have a hard as hell time building up from a tank.
I think the team has gotten back to what it was good at. Drafting good/smart/skilled players in round one. Integrating them smartly, and making clever trades to shore up depth with good players.
Chicago, Pittsburgh, LA, Tampa.
Has it really worked well in less desirable markets?
Edmonton's rebuild started in 2009 when they dropped into the top 10. They then had 3 first overall picks in a row, plus a 7th overall, 4th overall and then McDavid, then another 4th overall. That is 8 years of putrid awful team performance. They have a team with a high water mark of what we accomished with a non tank based strategy. Was it really worth it?
Buffalo hasn't made the playoffs in well over a decade undergoing a couple tanks.
Vancouver another market that tried a bottom out rebuild and it hasn't done much.
Do you think we'd fair any better in our market?
I think there are reasons teams like the Preds, Blues, and Canes don't tank. They know they'd have a hard as hell time building up from a tank.
I think the team has gotten back to what it was good at. Drafting good/smart/skilled players in round one. Integrating them smartly, and making clever trades to shore up depth with good players.
Last edited:
So org philosophy in terms of drafting and roster building is to utilize and target former first rounders who are forwards. They seem content to target dmen later in the draft/trade for former late round picks.
Roster:
Nino (5) Scheifele (7) Ehlers (9)
Conner (17) Perfetti (10) Vilardi (11)
Iafallo (undrafted) Lowry (67) Namestnikov (27)
Barron (174) Kupri (20) Appelton (168)
So that is 8 first round picks on forward or 67% of the core. Top 6 is full of top 10 picks. So clearly the org likes to acquire forward talent drafted high.
On defense the org has drafted only 4 dmen in the first round and only one top 10:
JoMo (13) DeMelo (179)
Dillion (undrafted) Pionk (undrafted)
Snerg (43) Schmidt (undrafted)
So three undrafted dmen and a first and second round pick in the starting lineup. Seems to match the drafting philosophy.
Same with goalie, using late round picks on them:
Helle (130)
Brossoit (164)
Roster:
Nino (5) Scheifele (7) Ehlers (9)
Conner (17) Perfetti (10) Vilardi (11)
Iafallo (undrafted) Lowry (67) Namestnikov (27)
Barron (174) Kupri (20) Appelton (168)
So that is 8 first round picks on forward or 67% of the core. Top 6 is full of top 10 picks. So clearly the org likes to acquire forward talent drafted high.
On defense the org has drafted only 4 dmen in the first round and only one top 10:
JoMo (13) DeMelo (179)
Dillion (undrafted) Pionk (undrafted)
Snerg (43) Schmidt (undrafted)
So three undrafted dmen and a first and second round pick in the starting lineup. Seems to match the drafting philosophy.
Same with goalie, using late round picks on them:
Helle (130)
Brossoit (164)
Last edited:
- Jun 10, 2014
- 59,577
- 32,677
You are reading something into this that doesn't exist. It is just that more better players come from the 1st rd. It isn't that they like top 10 picks in the top 6. It is that most top 6 players were drafted in the top 10.
Buffdog
Registered User
- Feb 13, 2019
- 9,259
- 22,961
With the reality of being an undesirable market, draft and develop becomes the bedrock of what the org needs to be. I'm not sure if there's another way
I think there's a path to win that doesn't involve generational talent, and it may be the better way to go in the cap era anyway. There's a downside to having a Matthews or McDavid on your team (of course there are the obvious upsides, too) - their contracts will always take away from the depth pieces that surround them. That's in addition to the years of sucking and the business related losses that go along with it
Identifying kids at the draft that aren't going to be maneuvering to get to big markets asap is important. Then handling the terms on their RFA contracts so that they're more like PLD where they hit UFA younger is also important IMO. That way, if they DO want out, their return in a trade is better than if they hit UFA at 30/31 like schief andnl helle do. That's from a purely asset management perspective.
I think there's a path to win that doesn't involve generational talent, and it may be the better way to go in the cap era anyway. There's a downside to having a Matthews or McDavid on your team (of course there are the obvious upsides, too) - their contracts will always take away from the depth pieces that surround them. That's in addition to the years of sucking and the business related losses that go along with it
Identifying kids at the draft that aren't going to be maneuvering to get to big markets asap is important. Then handling the terms on their RFA contracts so that they're more like PLD where they hit UFA younger is also important IMO. That way, if they DO want out, their return in a trade is better than if they hit UFA at 30/31 like schief andnl helle do. That's from a purely asset management perspective.
tbcwpg
Moderator
- Jan 25, 2011
- 16,820
- 20,606
I don't disagree with most of what you wrote here. I do think it's difficult to identify draftees thay aren't going to want to go to big markets when you're interviewing them at 17 or 18 years old.
Also, I don't know that term structure to bring them as close to UFA as possible is a wise strategy. Yes, it might make the return a bit better than trading a 30 year old, but you're significantly shortening your window to win by doing that. If players want to commit long term and they're good pieces you can build a position around (eg Morrissey), lock them up.
- Status
Ad
Upcoming events
-
Australian Open - Women Yulia Putintseva vs Daria KasatkinaWagers: 4Staked: $756.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
-
-