Player Discussion: Stanley

[Channelcat]

I would feel very comfortable putting money on Stanley being a better player in 4 years time, than he is today.

Myers is an anomaly to me when assessing tall players development. Its rare for a player to peak in their rookie season, which I think had much to do with how he was developed in their system. Should have spent a couple of seasons in the A instead of being thrown to the wolves in Buffalo.

Chara was 25 when he peaked, same with Pronger and Buff (6.5 is tall IMO).

It would be more accurate to say he peaked at 35. His "peak" was a very long one.

 

[MrBoJangelz71]

It would be more accurate to say he peaked at 35. His "peak" was a very long one.

Amazing career. He hit that peak at 25 and maintained it for close to a decade.

 

[Adam da bomb]

Amazing career. He hit that peak at 25 and maintained it for close to a decade.

Is chara going to end up in hall of fame?

 

[MrBoJangelz71]

Is chara going to end up in hall of fame?

Without question

 

[Jet]

He's better than Chara was at 22. There's no way you expose Stanley.

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.

 

[Adam da bomb]

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.

Makes sense.

 

[KingBogo]

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.

Well thought out argument Jet, but I personally don't think there is a chance in hell that the Jets leave Stanley exposed in the ED. The organization went on a limb to obtain him by moving up in the draft, then poured resources into developing him and are just now getting a glimpse of the player he may become. I think they see his ceiling as much higher than most around here give him credit for and they won't risk losing him. I don't think they want to lose DeMelo either, but he is a known commodity at age 28 and a reasonable ED loss and someone they can look to replace on the free market this off season. What I think happens is they expose DeMelo, but try to find a way to entice Seattle to take a forward left unprotected.

 

[johnnyonthspot]

I think the Jets need to keep all their dmen and have more depth at forward thetefore, if they could entice Seattle to take a forward would Harkins or Vesalinin be exposed in the ED?
Losing one of them would be more palatable than either Dman.

 

[Adam da bomb]

I think the Jets need to keep all their dmen and have more depth at forward thetefore, if they could entice Seattle to take a forward would Harkins or Vesalinin be exposed in the ED?
Losing one of them would be more palatable than either Dman.

Isn’t Ves supposed to replace Wheeler in top 6? If he is then it’s a lot easier to lose a d who will be out 7th d. Not saying that’s how I view Stanley just a thought.

 

[johnnyonthspot]

Isn’t Ves supposed to replace Wheeler in top 6? If he is then it’s a lot easier to lose a d who will be out 7th d. Not saying that’s how I view Stanley just a thought.

I am not sure you can replace Wheeler and I do not think Ves is top line player whereas I can see Stanley on pp2 at some point just for his shot.

 

[KingBogo]

Isn’t Ves supposed to replace Wheeler in top 6? If he is then it’s a lot easier to lose a d who will be out 7th d. Not saying that’s how I view Stanley just a thought.

Ves is a lot further away from being a top 6 forward than Stanley is from being a top 4 defenseman.

 

[Scheifele55]

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.

Good write up.

I do not personally believe Logan Stanley has hit his ceiling until we see him actually hit his ceiling. He continues to improve year by year and his biggest compliment was the fact he was touted by scouts as the most improved player in the OHL his draft year. Winnipeg has no big physical shut down potential dmen and Logan appears to have the best chance of being that. Of course I am big on him and have a bias because I am a Winnipeg Jets fan, and I am being completely optimistic which I have been since day 1 when we took him. The question will be, can Heinola, Samberg, Chisholm play on the right side?

 

[Channelcat]

Well thought out argument Jet, but I personally don't think there is a chance in hell that the Jets leave Stanley exposed in the ED. The organization went on a limb to obtain him by moving up in the draft, then poured resources into developing him and are just now getting a glimpse of the player he may become. I think they see his ceiling as much higher than most around here give him credit for and they won't risk losing him. I don't think they want to lose DeMelo either, but he is a known commodity at age 28 and a reasonable ED loss and someone they can look to replace on the free market this off season. What I think happens is they expose DeMelo, but try to find a way to entice Seattle to take a forward left unprotected.

Agreed. Demelo was a UFA (or would have been) and is a replaceable asset that the Jets have very little invested in. That being said, I too feel that they may prefer to lose a forward.

 

[Jet]

Well thought out argument Jet, but I personally don't think there is a chance in hell that the Jets leave Stanley exposed in the ED. The organization went on a limb to obtain him by moving up in the draft, then poured resources into developing him and are just now getting a glimpse of the player he may become. I think they see his ceiling as much higher than most around here give him credit for and they won't risk losing him. I don't think they want to lose DeMelo either, but he is a known commodity at age 28 and a reasonable ED loss and someone they can look to replace on the free market this off season. What I think happens is they expose DeMelo, but try to find a way to entice Seattle to take a forward left unprotected.

I guess we will see. It sure is a quandry.

 

[LowLefty]

Well thought out argument Jet, but I personally don't think there is a chance in hell that the Jets leave Stanley exposed in the ED. The organization went on a limb to obtain him by moving up in the draft, then poured resources into developing him and are just now getting a glimpse of the player he may become. I think they see his ceiling as much higher than most around here give him credit for and they won't risk losing him. I don't think they want to lose DeMelo either, but he is a known commodity at age 28 and a reasonable ED loss and someone they can look to replace on the free market this off season. What I think happens is they expose DeMelo, but try to find a way to entice Seattle to take a forward left unprotected.

This would be a logical assessment.

 

[LowLefty]

Good write up.

I do not personally believe Logan Stanley has hit his ceiling until we see him actually hit his ceiling. He continues to improve year by year and his biggest compliment was the fact he was touted by scouts as the most improved player in the OHL his draft year. Winnipeg has no big physical shut down potential dmen and Logan appears to have the best chance of being that. Of course I am big on him and have a bias because I am a Winnipeg Jets fan, and I am being completely optimistic which I have been since day 1 when we took him. The question will be, can Heinola, Samberg, Chisholm play on the right side?

Profound
It's all about potential now as we all line up to proclaim whether we are siding on the high or low side of that potential -
We're all guilty of that - and I'm siding on the high side.
I prefer home grown talent and I love an underdog story such as Stan - hope he hits the high side and hope he sticks.

 

[Guffman]

I would much prefer protecting Stanimal. The guy is a monster and has not looked out of place. I would like to see where his potential ends up.

If we lose DeMelo, I am OK if that ends up being our expansion cost. If you bring in a guy like Manson, and protect Stanimal, that leaves us with at least one of Manson and DeMelo after the expansion draft.

 

[DannyGallivan]

I would much prefer protecting Stanimal. The guy is a monster and has not looked out of place. I would like to see where his potential ends up.

If we lose DeMelo, I am OK if that ends up being our expansion cost. If you bring in a guy like Manson, and protect Stanimal, that leaves us with at least one of Manson and DeMelo after the expansion draft.

"Stanimal"... I hope he lives up to the moniker. I like it.

 

[Guffman]

"Stanimal"... I hope he lives up to the moniker. I like it.

I think it was originally coined by Morrissey. I like it too!

 

[DRW204]

atleast the guy has somewhat of a original nick-name

i think forbort's play has been kinda underwhelming lately, top 4 look for Stanley? please?

 

[DannyGallivan]

I think it was originally coined by Morrissey. I like it too!

Stanimal, Staninator, Mr. Stantastic, Stanley Roper (okay, not that last one).

 

[John Agar]

I think I am one of the originators of this DeMelo being exposed discussion instead of Stanley...

I'm with KingBogo on this...

I believe the Jets will offer Seattle possibly a draft pick and a defenseman with a name that is not Stanley, not Samberg, not Heinola...

For Seattle to take a selected forward... probably Harkins... the defenseman is named Niku... the draft pick would probably be a 3rd or 4th...

 

[10Ducky10]

I would much prefer protecting Stanimal. The guy is a monster and has not looked out of place. I would like to see where his potential ends up.

If we lose DeMelo, I am OK if that ends up being our expansion cost. If you bring in a guy like Manson, and protect Stanimal, that leaves us with at least one of Manson and DeMelo after the expansion draft.

Chevy isn't going to give up what it would cost to get Manson and then leave him unprotected.
Chevy should give the BJ's Niku and their 3rd back for Savard.

 

[Aggie204]

"Stanimal"... I hope he lives up to the moniker. I like it.

If/when I get a Stanley jersey, I’m putting that on the name plate.

 

[Guffman]

Chevy isn't going to give up what it would cost to get Manson and then leave him unprotected.
Chevy should give the BJ's Niku and their 3rd back for Savard.

I think that depends if we extend Manson. If he’s not interested in extending, would you protect him to keep him for just 1 more season at the expense of Stanley?

I don’t think Anaheim can charge much of a premium for Manson’s extra year just because of the expansion draft implications.

If it costs a first and a non-premier prospect, and we lose Manson in the expansion draft, we effectively just gave up that compensation for a needed rental and no loss to Seattle of our existing players (if they do pluck Manson).

That’s honestly a decent price to pay for a couple of benefits in my opinion.