Confirmed with Link: Logan Stanley 2 years 1.25 million

[Crocket]

The Jets are definitely too soft. They look like they don't want to have anything to do with contact. I don't know if guys are hurt but they peel away from throwing hits. I think Ehlers threw their biggest hit of the night.

Ehlers, Nino and Pionk are probably our most physical players. That was a good hit by Ehlers, on the pp too. Lowery is physical. But that's about it.

Stan did lower the boom on that play that unfortunately led to a kings breakaway.

When kupari plays physical he's affective, same with Barron, but he's not a physical player.

I'm glad Samberg is back, he used his body well.

I just think we could use a fairly intimidating RD that can either play with Josh, like a Brandon Carlo type, or a bottom pair guy that can play a limited role but is an absolute killer.

Again, it's not just about fighting, but when it gets physical as it does in the playoffs or some teams; you need guys that can step up.

Frederick knocking out Gus, scheifele getting cheap shots, Morrissey getting roughed up. The avalanche ran over us last year, Vegas did as well.
Florida out muscled the oilers last year, mostly because everyone was hurt at the end. It's a war. How many guys did Bennet, Tkachuck and Gudas hurt or maim in that run?

We have a great team. Just not sure we're built for 4 tough playoffs series'.

 

[Adam da bomb]

A lot of focus on a part that has a smaller role than 2nd line.

 

[Buffdog]

A lot of focus on a part that has a smaller role than 2nd line.

Even when all the roster spots are fixed according to how some people want them, they'll start to complain about how the assistant equipment manager packs the players bags before road trips

i think it's human nature to find problems to "fix", regardless of how insignificant they are in the grand scheme of things

 

[snowkiddin]

Even when all the roster spots are fixed according to how some people want them, they'll start to complain about how the assistant equipment manager packs the players bags before road trips

i think it's human nature to find problems to "fix", regardless of how insignificant they are in the grand scheme of things

I really wish you would stop making up strawmen like this.

Everyone knows we’ll start complaining about how the assistant manager UNPACKS the players’ bags AFTER road trips.

 

[ps241]

I'd say sick Pionk on him considering the work he does with McDavid but I find Mackinnon to be way more aggressive and heavy with the way he attacks. He's simply a beast.

You can’t let him get up that head of speed. He needs to be disrupted and slowed up especially in the neutral zone which is easier said than done. Something we didn’t do last playoffs.

 

[Bob E]

You can’t let him get up that head of speed. He needs to be disrupted and slowed up especially in the neutral zone which is easier said than done. Something we didn’t do last playoffs.

I’ll take my chances with Samberg and Salomonsson (once he’s in NHL next year) against MacKinnon and McDavid. Soon the Jets can match up against that elite speed but only if they commit to faster players and not Pionk and Stanley.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

For the last 1000th time, Stanley had nothing to do with losing Kovacevic. The org bringing Schmidt in was what did it (at the time they made that decision, Kova had 45 AHL games and zero NHL games). Kova and Stanley don't play the same position FFS. Neither one had any time on their off side

Chisholm is no better than Stanley


Yeah his PK has been bad. But 5v5 (which is what I'm told REALLY matters) he's been strong. The numbers back that up

For the 1001 time - your right and wrong.
Acquiring Schmidt was the handwriting on the wall. But when the time came, they had to choose between waiving Kovy or waiving Stan.

So .... this time you use the numbers?
Eye test says numbers are full of crap.

He has generally been better this year, but every few games he has one that is absolutely awful. Do his good ones out weigh them? Honestly, IDK for sure. I don't think so. His good games are usually not that good. I think he had 1 really good game this season. But I might be overreacting to the bad ones because they are so incredibly bad.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Hi strength is eating popcorn in the press box. What NHL D-man strength does he have. Mobil? nope. Block shot's? Nope, Clear front of net? Nope, Win board battles? Nope. No when to pinch? Nope. Can fight? Meh. he is a 7-8 NHL Dman at best. He gets turned around all the time, case in point the Marchessault play, then he gets 4 for trying to make him eat his stick... Best strength is up in the PB. enough already.

No need to sugar-coat it. Tell us what you really think.

 

[Jet]

You can’t let him get up that head of speed. He needs to be disrupted and slowed up especially in the neutral zone which is easier said than done. Something we didn’t do last playoffs.

Yup it takes a village

 

[Jet]

For the 1001 time - your right and wrong.
Acquiring Schmidt was the handwriting on the wall. But when the time came, they had to choose between waiving Kovy or waiving Stan.

So .... this time you use the numbers?
Eye test says numbers are full of crap.

He has generally been better this year, but every few games he has one that is absolutely awful. Do his good ones out weigh them? Honestly, IDK for sure. I don't think so. His good games are usually not that good. I think he had 1 really good game this season. But I might be overreacting to the bad ones because they are so incredibly bad.

bias at it's best. When you say he's had a bad game, what you mean is he's had a couple of bad plays or shifts in otherwise good games. The worst he played was when Morrissey was out and he, being a solid 6 guy was forced to play the toughest matchups and 50% more ice time. I'll admit, it was gross, but his first two periods were quite good.

Other than that, he hasn't had a bad game every few. He's been consistently good since coming back from injury (besides his first game back which is understandable).

I'm finding that people are just not noticing or willfully ignoring all of the good shifts Stanley has. I actually had a guy try to convince me that Stans exits are terrible and he can't pass. That's a f***ing joke as I've been hyper focused on Stanley good and bad over the past few weeks simply due to the level of hate he gets here.

Stanley can make ONE bad play in a game, and everyone says after that he was bad. That's an impossible standard for any player to live up to, but ESPECIALLY a guy who is a bottom pair defenseman.

Samberg last night made a horrid play and then when he tried to recover he fell and slid feet first into the boards - thank God he didn't break his leg or ankle. No one said boo about it.

Of course, I am ABSOLUTELY not comparing Snerg to Tree. But, it's a very small example of people focusing on things that confirm their bias.

I keep telling myself to stop trying to defend Stanley but it's maddening when people say things that are objectively untrue.

 

[Buffdog]

For the 1001 time - your right and wrong.
Acquiring Schmidt was the handwriting on the wall. But when the time came, they had to choose between waiving Kovy or waiving Stan.

So .... this time you use the numbers?
Eye test says numbers are full of crap.

He has generally been better this year, but every few games he has one that is absolutely awful. Do his good ones out weigh them? Honestly, IDK for sure. I don't think so. His good games are usually not that good. I think he had 1 really good game this season. But I might be overreacting to the bad ones because they are so incredibly bad.

I always use numbers AND eye test, like we all should

When we waived Kovacevic, the right side was set with Pionk, Demelo and Schmidt. The left side had Jomo, Dillon and Snerg who himself was a rookie (so less set)

Let's say they waived Stan and lost him and kept Kovacevic a LHD goes down or snerg falters. Kova had zero experience on the left side

That season the right side only lost 17 total man games to injury. Should a player like Kovacevic with a total of 5 NHL games up until that point sit the entire year in the press box? Was that right for his development?

It came down to management not seeing a way forward for him on the right side they assembled. They'd have preferred him to actually be playing in the A and developing over sitting all season. He didn't make it through the waiver process, which is what it's designed for. Stanley had nothing to do with it

Just because Stanley was there when Kova got waived doesn't mean that Kova got waived because Stanley was there. It's a temporal correlation, that's all

bias at it's best. When you say he's had a bad game, what you mean is he's had a couple of bad plays or shifts in otherwise good games. The worst he played was when Morrissey was out and he, being a solid 6 guy was forced to play the toughest matchups and 50% more ice time. I'll admit, it was gross, but his first two periods were quite good.

Other than that, he hasn't had a bad game every few. He's been consistently good since coming back from injury (besides his first game back which is understandable).

I'm finding that people are just not noticing or willfully ignoring all of the good shifts Stanley has. I actually had a guy try to convince me that Stans exits are terrible and he can't pass. That's a f***ing joke as I've been hyper focused on Stanley good and bad over the past few weeks simply due to the level of hate he gets here.

Stanley can make ONE bad play in a game, and everyone says after that he was bad. That's an impossible standard for any player to live up to, but ESPECIALLY a guy who is a bottom pair defenseman.

Samberg last night made a horrid play and then when he tried to recover he fell and slid feet first into the boards - thank God he didn't break his leg or ankle. No one said boo about it.

Of course, I am ABSOLUTELY not comparing Snerg to Tree. But, it's a very small example of people focusing on things that confirm their bias.

I keep telling myself to stop trying to defend Stanley but it's maddening when people say things that are objectively untrue.

I noticed some iffy plays by Snerg last night too but he's allowed a few gesnto get back up to speed. Both Stan and Heinola were the same coming back from injury

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

bias at it's best. When you say he's had a bad game, what you mean is he's had a couple of bad plays or shifts in otherwise good games. The worst he played was when Morrissey was out and he, being a solid 6 guy was forced to play the toughest matchups and 50% more ice time. I'll admit, it was gross, but his first two periods were quite good.

Other than that, he hasn't had a bad game every few. He's been consistently good since coming back from injury (besides his first game back which is understandable).

I'm finding that people are just not noticing or willfully ignoring all of the good shifts Stanley has. I actually had a guy try to convince me that Stans exits are terrible and he can't pass. That's a f***ing joke as I've been hyper focused on Stanley good and bad over the past few weeks simply due to the level of hate he gets here.

Stanley can make ONE bad play in a game, and everyone says after that he was bad. That's an impossible standard for any player to live up to, but ESPECIALLY a guy who is a bottom pair defenseman.

Samberg last night made a horrid play and then when he tried to recover he fell and slid feet first into the boards - thank God he didn't break his leg or ankle. No one said boo about it.

Of course, I am ABSOLUTELY not comparing Snerg to Tree. But, it's a very small example of people focusing on things that confirm their bias.

I keep telling myself to stop trying to defend Stanley but it's maddening when people say things that are objectively untrue.

Read as far as "his first two periods were quite good". I have no idea what you were watching. Those 2 periods were fugawful! The third was even worse.

OK, read the rest. His first game back was awful, but it was his first game so a little slack. it was 3 or 4 games later he had another absolutely gawdawful game. He was better after that until the Nash game but still peppered in a bad game out of every few. He was better again last night. Not great, but mostly I didn't notice him, which I will call a good thing for a Dman.

Stanley is not bad every play, every shift, every game. He makes some good plays. He even has some good games. But the bad is really bad.

I really want to be wrong about him. I look for his good plays too. They may be harder to see because they don't stand out the same way. But I look for them.

I get that you are trying to defend an underdog here. Good for you. But Stan isn't here. There is no need to work at defending him. Pavelec used to make some good saves too, had some good games, even had 1 good season. But he was dragging us down consistently. So does Stan. His good does not outweigh his bad except for a game here or there.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

I always use numbers AND eye test, like we all should

When we waived Kovacevic, the right side was set with Pionk, Demelo and Schmidt. The left side had Jomo, Dillon and Snerg who himself was a rookie (so less set)

Let's say they waived Stan and lost him and kept Kovacevic a LHD goes down or snerg falters. Kova had zero experience on the left side

That season the right side only lost 17 total man games to injury. Should a player like Kovacevic with a total of 5 NHL games up until that point sit the entire year in the press box? Was that right for his development?

It came down to management not seeing a way forward for him on the right side they assembled. They'd have preferred him to actually be playing in the A and developing over sitting all season. He didn't make it through the waiver process, which is what it's designed for. Stanley had nothing to do with it

Just because Stanley was there when Kova got waived doesn't mean that Kova got waived because Stanley was there. It's a temporal correlation, that's all


I noticed some iffy plays by Snerg last night too but he's allowed a few gesnto get back up to speed. Both Stan and Heinola were the same coming back from injury

Either way, you were going to keep a Dman who could only play his strong side - and one of them wasn't even any good there. Pretty sure we would also have lost Stan to waivers though.

What if the injuries had been more on the right than the left? Entirely unpredictable. A serious injury on the left might have needed us to go and find a replacement. Not usually hard at the 6/7 level.

I wouldn't have had Kova spend the whole season in the PB. I would have been giving him games at 3RD in a rotation with Schmidt until he took over.

 

[Buffdog]

Read as far as "his first two periods were quite good". I have no idea what you were watching. Those 2 periods were fugawful! The third was even worse.

OK, read the rest. His first game back was awful, but it was his first game so a little slack. it was 3 or 4 games later he had another absolutely gawdawful game. He was better after that until the Nash game but still peppered in a bad game out of every few. He was better again last night. Not great, but mostly I didn't notice him, which I will call a good thing for a Dman.

Stanley is not bad every play, every shift, every game. He makes some good plays. He even has some good games. But the bad is really bad.

I really want to be wrong about him. I look for his good plays too. They may be harder to see because they don't stand out the same way. But I look for them.

I get that you are trying to defend an underdog here. Good for you. But Stan isn't here. There is no need to work at defending him. Pavelec used to make some good saves too, had some good games, even had 1 good season. But he was dragging us down consistently. So does Stan. His good does not outweigh his bad except for a game here or there.

Can't speak for Jet, but I can say for myself that personally I don't see Stan as an "underdog"... I just point out that people's opinions are heavily biased

Nobody is saying he's a top 4 man. He's a #7 guy that can step in and do OK on the bottom pairing if you need him to. If you judge him based on that, you wouldn't be so against him, just like anyone else in that role

 

[DRW204]

For the 1001 time - your right and wrong.
Acquiring Schmidt was the handwriting on the wall. But when the time came, they had to choose between waiving Kovy or waiving Stan.

So .... this time you use the numbers?
Eye test says numbers are full of crap.

He has generally been better this year, but every few games he has one that is absolutely awful. Do his good ones out weigh them? Honestly, IDK for sure. I don't think so. His good games are usually not that good. I think he had 1 really good game this season. But I might be overreacting to the bad ones because they are so incredibly bad.

yeah i dont see how stanley is getting blamed for kovacevic. chisholm sure. but trading for schmidt and his contract was really the transaction that put kovacevic on the out. the Jets did not forecast that all to well, as merely a year later kovacevic was playing at a pretty solid level for mtl, and schmidt ends up being a bottom-pair guy at nearly 6m/year, who they are still paying not to play for them just a couple years after. it happens, although not to often for the Jets.

 

[Buffdog]

Either way, you were going to keep a Dman who could only play his strong side - and one of them wasn't even any good there. Pretty sure we would also have lost Stan to waivers though.

What if the injuries had been more on the right than the left? Entirely unpredictable. A serious injury on the left might have needed us to go and find a replacement. Not usually hard at the 6/7 level.

I wouldn't have had Kova spend the whole season in the PB. I would have been giving him games at 3RD in a rotation with Schmidt until he took over.

Schmidt was brought in to play with JoMo on the top pairing. That's where he started

This just goes to show that you're not recalling the series of evens accurately or objectively

Edit: No chance nate Schmidt waives his no trade clause to come and platoon on the bottom pairing with a guy with 5 games of NHL experience

Go look at the thread after the Schmidt trade. I'll give you $10 for every post that mentions Kovacevic

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Ehlers, Nino and Pionk are probably our most physical players. That was a good hit by Ehlers, on the pp too. Lowery is physical. But that's about it.

Stan did lower the boom on that play that unfortunately led to a kings breakaway.

When kupari plays physical he's affective, same with Barron, but he's not a physical player.

I'm glad Samberg is back, he used his body well.

I just think we could use a fairly intimidating RD that can either play with Josh, like a Brandon Carlo type, or a bottom pair guy that can play a limited role but is an absolute killer.

Again, it's not just about fighting, but when it gets physical as it does in the playoffs or some teams; you need guys that can step up.

Frederick knocking out Gus, scheifele getting cheap shots, Morrissey getting roughed up. The avalanche ran over us last year, Vegas did as well.
Florida out muscled the oilers last year, mostly because everyone was hurt at the end. It's a war. How many guys did Bennet, Tkachuck and Gudas hurt or maim in that run?

We have a great team. Just not sure we're built for 4 tough playoffs series'.

I'd like to get tougher, more physical. That doesn't mean fighting though. It means hits that hurt. It means not allowing opponents to get away with roughing up our skill players. Which still doesn't necessarily mean fighting. It can mean taking down the number of the guy and letting him know he won't get away with it the next time you have an opportunity to hit him. It can mean tit for tat roughing up their skill players. It can mean scoring a goal.

But PO rules are a reality. I agree we may not be built for PO hockey. I don't honestly think Bauer is the solution. He would be an answer to old man Reaves. Does Reaves even see the ice in the PO?

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

bias at it's best. When you say he's had a bad game, what you mean is he's had a couple of bad plays or shifts in otherwise good games. The worst he played was when Morrissey was out and he, being a solid 6 guy was forced to play the toughest matchups and 50% more ice time. I'll admit, it was gross, but his first two periods were quite good.

Other than that, he hasn't had a bad game every few. He's been consistently good since coming back from injury (besides his first game back which is understandable).

I'm finding that people are just not noticing or willfully ignoring all of the good shifts Stanley has. I actually had a guy try to convince me that Stans exits are terrible and he can't pass. That's a f***ing joke as I've been hyper focused on Stanley good and bad over the past few weeks simply due to the level of hate he gets here.

Stanley can make ONE bad play in a game, and everyone says after that he was bad. That's an impossible standard for any player to live up to, but ESPECIALLY a guy who is a bottom pair defenseman.

Samberg last night made a horrid play and then when he tried to recover he fell and slid feet first into the boards - thank God he didn't break his leg or ankle. No one said boo about it.

Of course, I am ABSOLUTELY not comparing Snerg to Tree. But, it's a very small example of people focusing on things that confirm their bias.

I keep telling myself to stop trying to defend Stanley but it's maddening when people say things that are objectively untrue.

"I keep telling myself to stop trying to defend Stanley but it's maddening when people say things that are objectively untrue."

Exactly how I feel when people keep defending him. Since we know he is going to play, I would rather just stop talking about him at all. But its maddening when people keep defending him after one of his truly horrible games.

We could make a deal. You defend him only after his good games. Say nothing after his bad ones. And I will attack him only after his bad games and say nothing after his good ones. I wonder how that might work out?

 

[Gm0ney]

bias at it's best. When you say he's had a bad game, what you mean is he's had a couple of bad plays or shifts in otherwise good games. The worst he played was when Morrissey was out and he, being a solid 6 guy was forced to play the toughest matchups and 50% more ice time. I'll admit, it was gross, but his first two periods were quite good.

Other than that, he hasn't had a bad game every few. He's been consistently good since coming back from injury (besides his first game back which is understandable).

I'm finding that people are just not noticing or willfully ignoring all of the good shifts Stanley has. I actually had a guy try to convince me that Stans exits are terrible and he can't pass. That's a f***ing joke as I've been hyper focused on Stanley good and bad over the past few weeks simply due to the level of hate he gets here.

Stanley can make ONE bad play in a game, and everyone says after that he was bad. That's an impossible standard for any player to live up to, but ESPECIALLY a guy who is a bottom pair defenseman.

Samberg last night made a horrid play and then when he tried to recover he fell and slid feet first into the boards - thank God he didn't break his leg or ankle. No one said boo about it.

Of course, I am ABSOLUTELY not comparing Snerg to Tree. But, it's a very small example of people focusing on things that confirm their bias.

I keep telling myself to stop trying to defend Stanley but it's maddening when people say things that are objectively untrue.

The bottom line is whether or not Stanley helps the Jets' chances of winning. I think he's pretty clearly a net negative just on his penalty differential and his PK results alone (although his PK results are way worse than his metrics).

He looks bad by the eye-test. He doesn't have any redeeming shot metrics. He's lucky his GF% is above water because he's underwater everywhere else...and I mean, maybe that's sustainable with Hellebuyck in net and Stanley being sheltered on the 3rd pair, but I wouldn't bet the house on it.

At 5v5, the Jets allow the most shot attempts, the most unblocked shot attempts, the most shots against, have the worst shot-attempt %, and the worst high danger chance % with Stanley on the ice vs. any of the other 8 defensemen the Jets have dressed this season, despite Stanley spending 80% of his time on a sheltered 3rd pair.

So not only is he a penalty-taking machine and a PK liability, he's got the worst shot metrics on the team at 5v5. So what is he bringing to the table to counter all that negative impact? Whatever it is, it's not enough...

 

[WolfHouse]

Can't speak for Jet, but I can say for myself that personally I don't see Stan as an "underdog"... I just point out that people's opinions are heavily biased

Nobody is saying he's a top 4 man. He's a #7 guy that can step in and do OK on the bottom pairing if you need him to. If you judge him based on that, you wouldn't be so against him, just like anyone else in that role

This makes no sense. If stan is a #7 D then theres literally no reason for him to be on the roster let alone killing penalties at a critical time... debate settled - sweet!