Tiny Heiny

[Mortimer Snerd]

Would this development include growing 3-4 inches and gaining 25-30 Ibs through some sort of osmosis, what part of too small doesn’t compute!?

The games where Stan supposedly bumbled around the Jets were winning and only allowing 1-2 goals, pretty tough to fault any of the D

This is all mute anyways, when Pionk is back, Miller and Fleury will fight for the 6D spot and Stan and Tiny Heiny will fight over popcorn duty!

The part where you say "too small".

It is not about size. It is about effectiveness. He hasn't managed to be effective enough. Neither has Stanley and he certainly has size. Fleury has size too, but he has bounced around the league because he hasn't used it effectively. Right now he is on a 2 way, league minimum contract in spite of having been a 7th OA pick. Size does not = effectiveness. Lack of it does not = ineffectiveness. There are plenty of successful Dmen who are Heini's size or smaller. They find ways to be effective.

Heinola has failed to grab a position. OTOH he has never been given any rope. What's the most consecutive games he has played? He has had to be wary of making any mistake or he would be press boxed again. Not many players manage to break in that way.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Heinola plays a small and soft game at the moment, and unless that changes it will be hard for him to be a regular NHL dman, imo.

Will he continue to develop a "harder game to play against" in order to stick in the NHL? Who knows, I would have thought Perfetti was in the same predicament but clearly, he has found a game that can compete when the games get more difficult.

But for now, unless Ville can demonstrate that harder game in practice, it's unlikely he has a future with the Jets.

Stanley is not the answer either on the bottom pairing. He plays fine for most of a game then gives up a terrible gaff that ends up in a goal against. Nearly every game. You can't have that player in a playoff lineup.

Just my guess, but I think Heinola has been trying to play a responsible defensive game. It is not his forte but he has been trying. I think he would have done better to concentrate on playing his best game, which is more offensive. If he had scored 8-10 pts in his 17 games, he would have been given more than 17 games. And his net defensive contribution might have been better too. You need to demonstrate an effort to give the coach what he wants but you also need to be yourself. He was not drafted to be a 225 lb shutdown Dman.

 

[sipowicz]

The part where you say "too small".

It is not about size. It is about effectiveness. He hasn't managed to be effective enough. Neither has Stanley and he certainly has size. Fleury has size too, but he has bounced around the league because he hasn't used it effectively. Right now he is on a 2 way, league minimum contract in spite of having been a 7th OA pick. Size does not = effectiveness. Lack of it does not = ineffectiveness. There are plenty of successful Dmen who are Heini's size or smaller. They find ways to be effective.

Heinola has failed to grab a position. OTOH he has never been given any rope. What's the most consecutive games he has played? He has had to be wary of making any mistake or he would be press boxed again. Not many players manage to break in that way.

Some guys seem to know more than the coaching staff, guess Tiny Heiny was only playing 9-10 minutes when he did play because he was so good!

 

[WolfHouse]

Some guys seem to know more than the coaching staff, guess Tiny Heiny was only playing 9-10 minutes when he did play because he was so good!

I mean the same coaching staff kept Stan over Chisholm and Kova... so there's that...

 

[Mud Turtle]

Some guys seem to know more than the coaching staff, guess Tiny Heiny was only playing 9-10 minutes when he did play because he was so good!

He’s been a + player almost every year in the AHL and NHL. I’m not sure what they want from him. At 24 he should have been given a much better chance this year.
To me, he’s been really mismanaged.

 

[sipowicz]

He’s been a + player almost every year in the AHL and NHL. I’m not sure what they want from him. At 24 he should have been given a much better chance this year.
To me, he’s been really mismanaged.

So I guess Niku, Vesalainen and Petan were also mismanaged!

​

 

[Buffdog]

I mean the same coaching staff kept Stan over Chisholm and Kova... so there's that...

Me wanting to explain in detail for the 1000th time that Stanley had nothing to do with Kovacevic

 

[Gm0ney]

The part where you say "too small".

It is not about size. It is about effectiveness. He hasn't managed to be effective enough. Neither has Stanley and he certainly has size. Fleury has size too, but he has bounced around the league because he hasn't used it effectively. Right now he is on a 2 way, league minimum contract in spite of having been a 7th OA pick. Size does not = effectiveness. Lack of it does not = ineffectiveness. There are plenty of successful Dmen who are Heini's size or smaller. They find ways to be effective.

Heinola has failed to grab a position. OTOH he has never been given any rope. What's the most consecutive games he has played? He has had to be wary of making any mistake or he would be press boxed again. Not many players manage to break in that way.

I believe the most consecutive NHL games Heinola has ever played in was 8. And that was a few years ago. I think he got 5 in a row this season at one point but I'd have to check.

 

[Gm0ney]

Some guys seem to know more than the coaching staff, guess Tiny Heiny was only playing 9-10 minutes when he did play because he was so good!

Are you referring to the same infallible coaching staff that keeps Appleton on the 3rd line?

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Some guys seem to know more than the coaching staff, guess Tiny Heiny was only playing 9-10 minutes when he did play because he was so good!

No. He was only playing 9-10 minutes because he was not taking sufficient advantage of the opportunity he got.

But it was not because of his size. If he was 20-30 lbs heavier he would be a completely different player. He might have gone top 5, or he might never have been drafted at all.

 

[Gm0ney]

Me wanting to explain in detail for the 1000th time that Stanley had nothing to do with Kovacevic

View attachment 998092

Do you think the Jets would've waived Kovacevic if they'd fulfilled Stanley's trade request and he was no longer on the team, or if he'd been injured in camp? It's the next guy up the pecking order that blocked Kova and got him waived - and that was Stanley.

 

[Gil Fisher]

Are you referring to the same infallible coaching staff that keeps Appleton on the 3rd line?

Stophe'salreadydead.gif

 

[Adam da bomb]

I mean the same coaching staff kept Stan over Chisholm and Kova... so there's that...

Also the same coaching staff who have kept us at top of league so there’s that…

Have they done everything right? No. Probably not.
Would we have been better with Kov over Stan in hindsight. Yeah.
Have they earned a little more leeway around here, in my mind, yeah.

 

[Buffdog]

Do you think the Jets would've waived Kovacevic if they'd fulfilled Stanley's trade request and he was no longer on the team, or if he'd been injured in camp? It's the next guy up the pecking order that blocked Kova and got him waived - and that was Stanley.

They waived Kavacevic because at the time they had Demelo, Schmidt and Pionk on the right side. Kovacevic wasn't about to play ahead of any of them

Conversely, they had JoMo, Dillon and Samberg on the left. At the time, Samberg only had 15 games of NHL experience and he won the 3LD job out of camp

They kept Stanley as the 7th D, knowing that his only chance of playing that year was if Samberg faltered or if there was injuries. In other words, they had no problem stapling him in the press box and letting him popcorn. In fact, Stanley only played 19 games that season. IiRC, it wasn't until after that season when rumours had him asking for a change of scenery (i could be wrong though)

If anything, it looks to me like they valued Kova ahead of Stanley and wanted him playing to continue his development

If you value a young player and have high hopes for them, you don't essentially let them sit an entire season at a crucial point in their development. Some people don't understand that

You could probably argue that Kovacevic wouldn't have turned out as good he did if they would have kept him that season and he didn't get a chance to play

People look at who's kept up and who was waived and they think that decision in and of itself reflects the organization's views about a player, but it's not as simple of that

 

[snowkiddin]

I mean the same coaching staff kept Stan over Chisholm and Kova... so there's that...

Who are you and what did you do to BobtheSolarsystem?

 

[Adam da bomb]

Who are you and what did you do to BobtheSolarsystem?

Looks like a case for PI. Is this a stumbledore case?

 

[TS Quint]

Are you referring to the same infallible coaching staff that keeps Appleton on the 3rd line?

Yes, the same coaching staff that has this team playing better than any Jet team in the history of the Jets.

Who wants to put up their hand for calling for a rebuild over the past 4 years? I would bet the vast majority of those hands are also on this thread saying how the Jets are doing it wrong with Heinola.

 

[Gm0ney]

Also the same coaching staff who have kept us at top of league so there’s that…

Have they done everything right? No. Probably not.
Would we have been better with Kov over Stan in hindsight. Yeah.
Have they earned a little more leeway around here, in my mind, yeah.

Yes, the same coaching staff that has this team playing better than any Jet team in the history of the Jets.

Who wants to put up their hand for calling for a rebuild over the past 4 years? I would bet the vast majority of those hands are also on this thread saying how the Jets are doing it wrong with Heinola.

This is not an argument that the coaching staff is infallible (as Adam himself points out). Cut them slack all you want, but it doesn't change my point that they may be making a mistake with regard to Heinola.

Also, TS, why are you talking about rebuilds? There's a search button at the top right of the page if you want to dig through history and draw some specious connection that probably only exists in your imagination.

 

[Gm0ney]

Also the same coaching staff who have kept us at top of league so there’s that…

Have they done everything right? No. Probably not.
Would we have been better with Kov over Stan in hindsight. Yeah.
Have they earned a little more leeway around here, in my mind, yeah.

They waived Kavacevic because at the time they had Demelo, Schmidt and Pionk on the right side. Kovacevic wasn't about to play ahead of any of them

Conversely, they had JoMo, Dillon and Samberg on the left. At the time, Samberg only had 15 games of NHL experience and he won the 3LD job out of camp

They kept Stanley as the 7th D, knowing that his only chance of playing that year was if Samberg faltered or if there was injuries. In other words, they had no problem stapling him in the press box and letting him popcorn. In fact, Stanley only played 19 games that season. IiRC, it wasn't until after that season when rumours had him asking for a change of scenery (i could be wrong though)

If anything, it looks to me like they valued Kova ahead of Stanley and wanted him playing to continue his development

If you value a young player and have high hopes for them, you don't essentially let them sit an entire season at a crucial point in their development. Some people don't understand that

You could probably argue that Kovacevic wouldn't have turned out as good he did if they would have kept him that season and he didn't get a chance to play

People look at who's kept up and who was waived and they think that decision in and of itself reflects the organization's views about a player, but it's not as simple of that

This is just opinion that you're presenting as fact. It's your opinion that Schmidt was a lock for 3 RD - a guy coming off a pretty disappointing season and who was ultimately bought out.

And if they were really interested in developing Kova, rotating him with Schmidt would've been a pretty good way to do it.

Anyway, don't go sighing that you have to explain your pet theory again for thousandth time like it's settled science, because, for the thousandth time, no one's buying it.

 

[Buffdog]

This is just opinion that you're presenting as fact. It's your opinion that Schmidt was a lock for 3 RD - a guy coming off a pretty disappointing season and who was ultimately bought out.

And if they were really interested in developing Kova, rotating him with Schmidt would've been a pretty good way to do it.

Anyway, don't go sighing that you have to explain your pet theory again for thousandth time like it's settled science, because, for the thousandth time, no one's buying it.

Maybe you don't recall, but Schmidt was initially brought in to play on the top pair with JoMo. There's no way that a guy like that gets demoted to platoon duty with a kid with 4 NHL games under his belt a year later

Imagine the message that would send to every player with a NTC that Chevy tries to aquire... "please waive to come to Winnipeg... but don't f*** up or else you'll be sharing pressbox duty with a rookie who hasn't proven anything in the league"

This is just another example of you not understanding how different factors go into making decisions in the NHL. I can't blame you though, because there's no way that you can know what you don't know - despite several of us trying to help you understand

If only running an NHL organization were as simple as you seem to think it is

 

[sipowicz]

Comrie is a ……….g….o……weak backup!

 

[Gm0ney]

Maybe you don't recall, but Schmidt was initially brought in to play on the top pair with JoMo. There's no way that a guy like that gets demoted to platoon duty with a kid with 4 NHL games under his belt a year later

Imagine the message that would send to every player with a NTC that Chevy tries to aquire... "please waive to come to Winnipeg... but don't f*** up or else you'll be sharing pressbox duty with a rookie who hasn't proven anything in the league"

This is just another example of you not understanding how different factors go into making decisions in the NHL. I can't blame you though, because there's no way that you can know what you don't know - despite several of us trying to help you understand

If only running an NHL organization were as simple as you seem to think it is

A guy who'd been cap dumped twice was guaranteed a lineup spot? Solid management decision.

I'm sure the repercussions of putting Schmidt on a rotation would've sent shockwaves through the league. Luckily they didn't do that and just look at all the players waiving to come here now!

I guess it does send a pretty clear message to developing players that (unless you're 6'7"), the only way into the lineup is if a vet finally leaves...it's a real meritocracy.

 

[Buffdog]

A guy who'd been cap dumped twice was guaranteed a lineup spot? Solid management decision.

I'm sure the repercussions of putting Schmidt on a rotation would've sent shockwaves through the league. Luckily they didn't do that and just look at all the players waiving to come here now!

I guess it does send a pretty clear message to developing players that (unless you're 6'7"), the only way into the lineup is if a vet finally leaves...it's a real meritocracy.

You're doing your typical thing of becoming condescending of someone's ideas that you disagree with instead of discussing in good faith. You seem like a relatively intelligent person, and I think you can do better than that. Everythig you're saying here is through the lens of hindsight

The whole premise of my "pet theory" was that the org's mistake was committing to trade for Schmidt over a year before losing Kovacevic on waivers

But if you go back and look at the thread after the trade, there weren't many haters of the deal. In fact, @JetsFan815 said that the acquisition of Schmidt would allow the Jets to "dump JoMo"...

Management misread Kovacevic's ceiling at a point in his career when he had 4 NHL games and 76 games AHL experience. They went with a known quantity in a vet while in a win-now mode. It happens

 

[Gm0ney]

You're doing your typical thing of becoming condescending of someone's ideas that you disagree with instead of discussing in good faith. You seem like a relatively intelligent person, and I think you can do better than that. Everythig you're saying here is through the lens of hindsight

The whole premise of my "pet theory" was that the org's mistake was committing to trade for Schmidt over a year before losing Kovacevic on waivers

But if you go back and look at the thread after the trade, there weren't many haters of the deal. In fact, @JetsFan815 said that the acquisition of Schmidt would allow the Jets to "dump JoMo"...

Management misread Kovacevic's ceiling at a point in his career when he had 4 NHL games and 76 games AHL experience. They went with a known quantity in a vet while in a win-now mode. It happens

Hang on...I'm condescending? I am not the one in this argument saying things like:

"Maybe you don't recall, but..."

"This is just another example of you not understanding how..."

"If only running an NHL organization were as simple as you seem to think it is..."

"You seem like a relatively intelligent person, and I think you can do better than that."

Do you really not see all that?

I'm not sure if you're just blind to it and you actually think what you're doing is arguing in good faith or if you're doing it on purpose.

Anyway, it's not condescending or hindsight to say Schmidt had been cap dumped on the Canucks, had a bad year, and then got cap dumped on Winnipeg and had another bad year. So I think in light of that, making Schmidt a lock was a dumb plan.

It's also not condescending or hindsight to say platooning a guy who had a couple of bad years wouldn't likely have any measurable impact on players waiving to come here. It certainly doesn't seem to have helped, in any event (and that's hindsight).

So I don't think Schmidt himself was the big factor. They had 2 defensemen who needed to clear waivers, and they chose to protect Stanley (who they have never even attempted to send through waivers since he became eligible)...like they always do. They didn't just misread Kova, they misread (and continue to misread) Stanley...and they've had a lot more than a couple of years to come to that erroneous conclusion.

 

[Buffdog]

Hang on...I'm condescending? I am not the one in this argument saying things like:

"Maybe you don't recall, but..."

"This is just another example of you not understanding how..."

"If only running an NHL organization were as simple as you seem to think it is..."

"You seem like a relatively intelligent person, and I think you can do better than that."

Do you really not see all that?

I'm not sure if you're just blind to it and you actually think what you're doing is arguing in good faith or if you're doing it on purpose.

Anyway, it's not condescending or hindsight to say Schmidt had been cap dumped on the Canucks, had a bad year, and then got cap dumped on Winnipeg and had another bad year. So I think in light of that, making Schmidt a lock was a dumb plan.

It's also not condescending or hindsight to say platooning a guy who had a couple of bad years wouldn't likely have any measurable impact on players waiving to come here. It certainly doesn't seem to have helped, in any event (and that's hindsight).

So I don't think Schmidt himself was the big factor. They had 2 defensemen who needed to clear waivers, and they chose to protect Stanley (who they have never even attempted to send through waivers since he became eligible)...like they always do. They didn't just misread Kova, they misread (and continue to misread) Stanley...and they've had a lot more than a couple of years to come to that erroneous conclusion.

They chose to staple the lesser player in the pressbox and continue to try to develop Kovacevic

As for the rest of you accusations about me being condescending... I wasn't. I try to understand your positions but based on our history, your first reaction is to just blanket disagree with anything I say

I honestly think that you disagree with me as a default, then go back and try to figure out an argument that you can hang your hat on.

Hey, if you thought that they should have kept Kovacevic and platooned him with Schmidt at the time, good on you. I'm sure you posted about it somewhere and you can dig that up. I'm tempted to go back through all those threads to see what your views were on all of this back then, but I honestly don't give enough of a f***.

But at the end of the day, going into the 2022-23 season, Schmidt was a known quantity and Kovacevic wasn't. Stanley was also a known quantity (7th defenseman). That's why they put him on waivers, hoping to slide him through... they wanted him to play and he wasn't going to with the D roster we had at the time

In hindsight, maybe the org would have done things differently. Or maybe not. But at the time, all these decisions were logical and defensible