Rumour, Trade & Free Agent Discussion

[mondo3]

I really doubt the Jets buy out Perreault, as it hasn’t been their pattern. Traded if possible, but if they can’t, how would that affect the cap space?

 

[surixon]

Barring us being able to get a really good two C and needing that extra cap space i don't see much point in buying perrault out. He's still a useful depth piece and is off the books in a year.

 

[ps241]

Barring us being able to get a really good two C and needing that extra cap space i don't see much point in buying perrault out. He's still a useful depth piece and is off the books in a year.

I agree. Matty P isn’t the same player he use to be but he hasn’t fallen off a cliff. He will be fine to play one more season.

 

[Weezeric]

I can’t imagine the Jets not having a good middle six with little, copp, perreault, roslovic, and two of Ehlers, Laine, Wheeler and Connor. Mix them however you want. Plus you have Lowry, Harkins, Appleton, Vesa and Gus for 4th line options with upside.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Anything more that $1.5 for Eakin on a very short term at this stage of his career is going to come back to haunt us. We are already dealing with Matty P and Little we can’t afford more dead cap space.

He is 3 1/2 years younger than those 2. Even so, I agree the term needs to be short. But 1.5 seems a little light. His current contract is for 3.85 mil. Do you really think he gets a cut to less than half that?

You are apparently not too impressed by his play with Ehlers and Laine.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Petan got a 2nd chance in Toronto. Now it can't just be blamed on Maurice since he couldn't find regular work with the Leafs. So you can now lay the blame on Keefe as well. Maybe he gets a 3rd chance but at age 25 with a career point total of 6-21-27 in 129 games the odds will be long, especially when you are undersized and don't play with speed.

Another team both strong and deep up front. Not really much opportunity there.

He has only had chances for 4th line duty and he is not a PK'er.

I wonder how he would do on a 3rd line with Harkins and Roslovic?

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

I really doubt the Jets buy out Perreault, as it hasn’t been their pattern. Traded if possible, but if they can’t, how would that affect the cap space?

I think they keep him if they can. There may just not be room. Or they trade him if they can. At 50% retained he is a good value player for some team. But if they need the room and can't find a buyer then a buy-out is much better than paying someone to take his contract.

I use the buy-out in projecting a cap structure because it is something that is easy to plan for. The exact cost is known and there is no need to find a partner.

They bought out the last year of Mark Stuart's contract so MP would not be a first.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Barring us being able to get a really good two C and needing that extra cap space i don't see much point in buying perrault out. He's still a useful depth piece and is off the books in a year.

But getting a 2C is the reason to buy him out. There is no point in buying him out if the cap space is not needed. But it will be needed if Jets get a 2C, or if they sign an FA D man.

 

[Whileee]

He is 3 1/2 years younger than those 2. Even so, I agree the term needs to be short. But 1.5 seems a little light. His current contract is for 3.85 mil. Do you really think he gets a cut to less than half that?

You are apparently not too impressed by his play with Ehlers and Laine.

I think he was okay with Ehlers and Laine (better than I expected), but they really didn't drive play very much. In the longer term, I don't think he's as good as Little or Roslovic or Copp or Wheeler would be with Ehlers and Laine. So he seems like a redundant player going forward, and that money would be better spent elsewhere.

 

[KingBogo]

Another team both strong and deep up front. Not really much opportunity there.

He has only had chances for 4th line duty and he is not a PK'er.

I wonder how he would do on a 3rd line with Harkins and Roslovic?

Well Toronto was the only other team willing to give him another shot. He has been on waivers a few times now and available for free to anyone with even a passing interest. Some players just aren't able to find regular work in the NHL for any number of reasons, and since it is no one's right to be given a job in the NHL it ultimately falls on them.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

I think he was okay with Ehlers and Laine (better than I expected), but they really didn't drive play very much. In the longer term, I don't think he's as good as Little or Roslovic or Copp or Wheeler would be with Ehlers and Laine. So he seems like a redundant player going forward, and that money would be better spent elsewhere.

I can see that view of him, but I thought he was better than that. I thought his positional play was helping Niko and Laine be more successful.

We really can't know what Little will bring after aging another year without playing. Copp was a failure, pure and simple, at 2C. The line died with him. Roslovic hasn't shown much at C although he was good at 3C in the brief life of the 2015 line. Wheeler does a good job at C - for a RW. Whatever the 2nd line may gain with him at C is lost by the 1st line without him at RW - or by the 2nd line if Laine plays 1RW. The net effect on the top 6 of Wheeler at 2C is probably neutral at best.

If we don't add a 2C from somewhere our best, and maybe only, hope is that BL can come back and be effective. Given the last 3 years, that doesn't look like a very good bet.

Eakin is not my first choice to fill that hole. But it is relatively easy to pencil him in there. I'm not really confident of that move and I don't really know what his market value might be. I'm just guessing based on his previous contract. I would not risk much term at all.

I agree that the money could be better spent elsewhere if that means a better 2C solution.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Well Toronto was the only other team willing to give him another shot. He has been on waivers a few times now and available for free to anyone with even a passing interest. Some players just aren't able to find regular work in the NHL for any number of reasons, and since it is no one's right to be given a job in the NHL it ultimately falls on them.

That doesn't change the fact that he had little chance of being a good fit there.

Having been on waivers doesn't have any affect on his lack of opportunity with 2 teams that were strong up front. It doesn't change the fact that if he is ever going to succeed anywhere it will have to be with a team that can play him in a more appropriate role.

 

[ps241]

He is 3 1/2 years younger than those 2. Even so, I agree the term needs to be short. But 1.5 seems a little light. His current contract is for 3.85 mil. Do you really think he gets a cut to less than half that?

You are apparently not too impressed by his play with Ehlers and Laine.

I think he gets paid more than that but that is what I would set our number at. I didn't mind his play but he is not a 2nd line center he was just a placeholder until we get someone who qualifies. In my opinion he is not as good as Lowry or Copp and they will both need new deals after next season and I would prefer keeping both those guys over Eakin as 3rd line assets.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

I think he gets paid more than that but that is what I would set our number at. I didn't mind his play but he is not a 2nd line center he was just a placeholder until we get someone who qualifies. In my opinion he is not as good as Lowry or Copp and they will both need new deals after next season and I would prefer keeping both those guys over Eakin as 3rd line assets.

Fair enough.

There is really nothing in his resume that suggests 2C.

I think it is time to cash in on Lowry but that has no effect on Eakin. If he is not a 2C we have no place for him.

 

[Whileee]

I can see that view of him, but I thought he was better than that. I thought his positional play was helping Niko and Laine be more successful.

We really can't know what Little will bring after aging another year without playing. Copp was a failure, pure and simple, at 2C. The line died with him. Roslovic hasn't shown much at C although he was good at 3C in the brief life of the 2015 line. Wheeler does a good job at C - for a RW. Whatever the 2nd line may gain with him at C is lost by the 1st line without him at RW - or by the 2nd line if Laine plays 1RW. The net effect on the top 6 of Wheeler at 2C is probably neutral at best.

If we don't add a 2C from somewhere our best, and maybe only, hope is that BL can come back and be effective. Given the last 3 years, that doesn't look like a very good bet.

Eakin is not my first choice to fill that hole. But it is relatively easy to pencil him in there. I'm not really confident of that move and I don't really know what his market value might be. I'm just guessing based on his previous contract. I would not risk much term at all.

I agree that the money could be better spent elsewhere if that means a better 2C solution.

I disagree that Copp has been a "failure" at 2C. What are you basing that on?

Here are some relevant metrics for the Ehlers-Copp-Laine line over the past few seasons (about 60 minutes 5v5):

CF% 57.4 (rel +7.1)
GF% 55.6 (rel +3.6)
xGF% 54.7 (rel +6.0)

It's a small sample size, but rather encouraging, don't you think?

In comparison, Eakin with Ehlers and Laine (49 minutes):

CF% 47.8 (rel -2.6)
GF% 75.0 (rel +5.6)
xGF% 40.9 (rel -4.1)

Note that with Eakin they had an unsustainably high on-ice shooting percentage (>20%), which inflated their scoring and GF%.

My point is that we have more evidence that Copp is a good C with Ehlers and Laine than for Eakin, so I'm not sure how Copp is considered a "failure" and Eakin a solution.

 

[Whileee]

By the way, I looked at a variety of combinations with Copp at C and top-6 wingers and the results were very positive in terms of shot metrics and goal share. So, I think the narrative that Copp can't be effective with top-6 wingers is contradicted by the data.

 

[KingBogo]

That doesn't change the fact that he had little chance of being a good fit there.

Having been on waivers doesn't have any affect on his lack of opportunity with 2 teams that were strong up front. It doesn't change the fact that if he is ever going to succeed anywhere it will have to be with a team that can play him in a more appropriate role.

Most players are at some point placed into less than favourable or ideal roles, especially those trying to get a foothold in the league. Players move up the ladder and into roles they are more suited for to by gaining experience and proving themselves to be effective with whatever opportunity they are given. We saw that first hand last season with Harkins among others.

 

[jiho]

If we can not find a 2C through trade, I would like to give Harkins a chance.

 

[Weezeric]

By the way, I looked at a variety of combinations with Copp at C and top-6 wingers and the results were very positive in terms of shot metrics and goal share. So, I think the narrative that Copp can't be effective with top-6 wingers is contradicted by the data.

I don’t see any reason why a middle six of any combination of Ehlers, Laine, Little, Perreault, roslovic, and copp isn’t an above average middle six.

 

[Adam da bomb]

I don’t see any reason why a middle six of any combination of Ehlers, Laine, Little, Perreault, roslovic, and copp isn’t an above average middle six.

So weird top 6 vs middle 6 vs bottom 6.

 

[ps241]

I disagree that Copp has been a "failure" at 2C. What are you basing that on?

Here are some relevant metrics for the Ehlers-Copp-Laine line over the past few seasons (about 60 minutes 5v5):

CF% 57.4 (rel +7.1)
GF% 55.6 (rel +3.6)
xGF% 54.7 (rel +6.0)

It's a small sample size, but rather encouraging, don't you think?

In comparison, Eakin with Ehlers and Laine (49 minutes):

CF% 47.8 (rel -2.6)
GF% 75.0 (rel +5.6)
xGF% 40.9 (rel -4.1)

Note that with Eakin they had an unsustainably high on-ice shooting percentage (>20%), which inflated their scoring and GF%.

My point is that we have more evidence that Copp is a good C with Ehlers and Laine than for Eakin, so I'm not sure how Copp is considered a "failure" and Eakin a solution.

you are feeding into my weakness. After Buff Andrew is my favorite Jet. He is elite defensively and he is probably our best leader after Blake. Copp is a baller and can roll against the best in the NHL.

 

[GaryPoppins]

Random question but this crossed my mind... There is talk that teams may have a one-time compliance buyout if the cap stays static or decreases so it got me wondering... .

This year, you saw Calgary buy out Stone and then resign him to a lesser contract.

Wondering if the Jets may consider buying out Little and then resigning him to a lower caphit? Win/win for both, IMO.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

I disagree that Copp has been a "failure" at 2C. What are you basing that on?

Here are some relevant metrics for the Ehlers-Copp-Laine line over the past few seasons (about 60 minutes 5v5):

CF% 57.4 (rel +7.1)
GF% 55.6 (rel +3.6)
xGF% 54.7 (rel +6.0)

It's a small sample size, but rather encouraging, don't you think?

In comparison, Eakin with Ehlers and Laine (49 minutes):

CF% 47.8 (rel -2.6)
GF% 75.0 (rel +5.6)
xGF% 40.9 (rel -4.1)

Note that with Eakin they had an unsustainably high on-ice shooting percentage (>20%), which inflated their scoring and GF%.

My point is that we have more evidence that Copp is a good C with Ehlers and Laine than for Eakin, so I'm not sure how Copp is considered a "failure" and Eakin a solution.

I didn't say Eakin was a solution. I said I am very uncertain about him. Eye test only, the line looked good with him. Too small a sample for any of those statistical measurements to mean anything.

Copp finally got an extended shot at 2C this year. He and his linemates scored very little. The line was largely invisible.

Eakin had an unsustainable sh%? He had 1 goal.

You are using statistics whose validity is based on large samples and using them for very small samples.

 

[Whileee]

I didn't say Eakin was a solution. I said I am very uncertain about him. Eye test only, the line looked good with him. Too small a sample for any of those statistical measurements to mean anything.

Copp finally got an extended shot at 2C this year. He and his linemates scored very little. The line was largely invisible.

Eakin had an unsustainable sh%? He had 1 goal.

You are using statistics whose validity is based on large samples and using them for very small samples.

Ehlers-Copp-Laine scored 5 goals in their 59 minutes together. The sample size is small for stats, but even moreso for the eye test. I like Copp much better than Eakin as an option for C in the top 6. He's produced about the same as Eakin 5v5 over the past few years.

Anyway, my opinion is "no" on Eakin. Redundant for the Jets.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Most players are at some point placed into less than favourable or ideal roles, especially those trying to get a foothold in the league. Players move up the ladder and into roles they are more suited for to by gaining experience and proving themselves to be effective with whatever opportunity they are given. We saw that first hand last season with Harkins among others.

What are you trying to prove here? Why are you arguing this line with me? I asked a question. Might he get another chance? How do you argue with a question? I suggested that if he gets another chance he will need it to be with a team that can offer him favourable conditions for him to succeed.

You aren't arguing with that. You are arguing with me as though I had said he was a great player who was robed of a chance. Where did I say anything like that?

Some players can play their way up from a checking role. Some cannot. Do all players need to be cut from the same cloth? That path did not suit Petan. Never would. That doesn't mean he is not fit for a different role.