I appreciate that sentiment. I definitely do not want to lose Stanley. This does underline a theme of these boards - after all it's called Hockey's Future. Unproven prospects are always valued higher than established players. Sometimes, it's a no brainer, but with Stanley there is still a lot of question marks. He could absolutely turn into the next Chara - no doubt. However, maybe he's peaking right now? I don't think that's likely but it's not out of the question at all. Guys like Myers, Bogosian, and the list goes on and on came into the NHL performing at a much higher level than Stanley is now and then kind of fell into an average or below average player - or a player with a ton of warts.
In a normal season, of course you keep Stanley, no doubt. However, this is a very complex situation. Not only must we expose a very useful player in the X draft, but we have 3 (4 if Chisholm is getting close) defensemen that are banging down the door to play for the Jets. Whether philosophically you agree with the Jets org about how they bring young players in, we know they aren't going to have 3 or 4 rookies in the defense for this team.
So, you have to look at this wholistically and logically. Do you let an established (and more rare RHD) top 4 proven guy go, or do you expose a young guy (a LHD)?
- If you keep Stanley and let Demelo go, now you are sentencing Samberg to at least another year in the A, and Chisholm gets pushed back even further.
- Next year, you have Stanley (who is still at bottom pair guy), and Heinola (who would likely play in the top 4 but will struggle with the physical demands of the NHL).
As much as I don't like it, the logic falls with exposing Stanley.