But last season we didn't have all the AHL tweeners that were mentioned in the post I was responding to. Agreed that once the season was out of reach last year it would have been a good opportunity to give your close prospects some games.
Trade, FA and Rumours 2022/23
- Thread starter tbcwpg
- Start date
- Status
That's the problem I'm having that we should have played the kids when we were playing the plugs. It would have been nice if they were all as developed as they are now, but the worst plug season was 3 years ago and the current kids we now have were in junior and the NCAA and no where ready to be thrown to the wolves at the NHL level.
Chevy wanted him in games the year before that as well and Moe left him rotting on the taxi squad and played his plugs instead. There has been opportunities to give him a real run of games but for one reason or another they have elected not to give him that run.
Anyhow I think this is going to be moot anyhow as It seems we are heading for a split. Let's just hope Chevy gets something of value for him.
If you belive in your kids, then this is where contract management comes into play. They should have been looking for short term defensive fits so that your prospects where ready when those contracts expired. Instead Chevy went out and got players with a lot of term on their deals.
This is a totally different argument. And I agree that getting both Dillion and Schmidt before last season blocked the door. But before that door was blocked our young D prospects were no where ready 2-3 years ago, during the time of the defensive plugs.
True enough. I'm not arguing that point but I guess some others are.
Pionk's replacement is Heinola. Heinola can bring offense from the blue line, run the point on the powerplay and there's a chance he's not as defensively terrible as Pionk - all at a savings of several million US dollars per year.
Pionk currently sits atop the league for defensemen in xGA/60 with 4.23 - it's quite a gap between him and the 2nd worst, much maligned Erik Gudbranson at 3.94. Oh, but it's only been 10 games...small sample - you say? Well maybe there's something to that because last year, Pionk was only 4th worst in xGA/60...and 4.23/60 is pretty unsustainable.
Lucky for Pionk he plays in front of perennial Vezina candidate Hellebuyck so he's only the 16th worst defenseman in Goals Against/60 in the league.
Yeah it's looking like he should have been dealt after his one big year.
Hunter368
RIP lomiller1, see you in the next life buddy.
- Nov 8, 2011
- 27,403
- 24,557
You looking at one aspect only with Villa vs say Nate, Villa is the size of a teenage boy and Nate is a grown man, so yeh both are offensive, both a weaker defensively, but literally Ville is boy sized which does matter in front of the net and the corners. To be clear I never advocated not trading Nate, matter of fact I've posted multi posts (on our board & on the mains) saying we should trade him in the last week. I'm just saying those who are thinking Ville solves any problems on D are going to disappointed, Ville arguably will be slightly worse in ways and slightly better in other ways.........but overall likely no better performance likely. Tiny Dman need to be exceptional at something to make up for the shortcomings (pun intended), Ville isn't that good offensively to make up for his issues so why expect he is going to be any savior on our D. In the end IMO we should:
Keep Josh
Likely keep Dillon unless someone gives us a good offer, he's our best physical big strong D, I would consider him a #4D, maybe #5 on a bad day.
Pionk, Nate, Ville, Stanley are all tradable, not saying all should be traded, but some should be......Nate 1st. Pionk, Nate & Ville are all the same offensive, weak defensively/physically guys, sure we can keep one, but three is too much. Stanley struggles vs fast team, his foot speed & skating just isn't good enough.
Samberg might be a replacement for Dillon, but he certainly replace Stanley.
someone will point to his goal scoring.... if he continues scoring every 8 SOGs than that might mitigate some of his defensive short comings. however, what's more of his norm for him, 12% shooting, or in the bottom section of the league defensive rating
What I’m curious about is why, when our prospects (Stanley, Samberg, Heinola, Chisholm) were still a few years away, did Chevy elect to fill the gaps on D with the likes of Dahlstrom, Sbisa, Bitetto, Beaulieu, etc.? Then, last summer, when it appeared a number of our young D were at least on the cusp (Stanley had a full year under his belt, Samberg had a good pro season with the Moose, Ville had put together a good season in Finland/AHL, and didn’t looked out of place in his NHL cup of coffee, and Chisholm, while not ready by last summer, at least looked good in his rookie year in the AHL) THEN we decided to bring in actual NHLers with term on their contracts, essentially blocking our prospects. Hindsight is 20/20 and I know a lot on this board, myself included, were pleased at the time at the Schmidt and Dillon acquisitions, but I think a lot of us figured a defenceman would be traded by now for forward help and to open a spot. We have a surplus of defencemen and poor forward depth. Since we don’t sign free agents, wouldn’t it be perfect to move some of this excess D for forward help while simultaneously opening a spot for a young defenceman that looks ready for an NHL role? It’s a win-win.
I agree you don’t want to throw your young prospects into the fire during the plug-playing days, but why did we waste those seasons signing garbage if we were eventually gonna go ahead and spend assets on better D? The time for the Schmidt/Dillon acquisitions was three years ago when we lost our D core and our prospects weren’t ready. Bringing them in as late as we did kiboshed two seasons for us and has now blocked these D who were marinating nicely in the AHL, and now appear ready.
Last edited:
Still i take the same results for 5 million less in terms of cap hit and use thay money to improve the team in other ways.
One way he massively helps rge team is on the pp.
These are really good questions. As I've said a few times in other posts it seems to me that Chevy was unprepared for the overhaul of our defense and wasted 2 years filling holes with AHL tweeners and then got actual NHL defenseman just as his D prospects were getting close. It retrospect it appears to have been a pretty big strategic mistake on his part.
Chevy's always a day late and a dollar short when it comes to recognizing and addressing problems. He lets things fester for way too long. The Kane situation. Pavelec. The D collapse after Buff packed it in. Now he's finally got defensive prospects that look ready to take the next step and he's sitting on his hands while they get mad about being roadblocked.
Imo he capitulated to Maurice and likely internsl pressure to get back to winning after Moe wouldn't trial the prospects in 20-21 down the stretch. We all heard the public spat about Ville then. Then Moe in his end of year interview says something about maybe Chevy should go out and bring in someone to play with JoMo.
Clearly there was some disagreement on how to proceed. So he went out and got the vets his coach wanted but 2 years too late.
- Dec 29, 2016
- 7,718
- 14,078
The real question is, why would you want either one in the lineup -
The "same results" we are referring to are poor defense but added offense - is that what we need on the blueline?
I've never understood the approach of evaluating defense by measuring offense and sliding the D part under the rug.
I mean Colorado just won a cup with that strategy. What exactly is wrong with increased offense from the defense? One way not to defend is to keep the puck in the other end of the ice.
- Dec 29, 2016
- 7,718
- 14,078
There is nothing wrong with offensive dmen if they can also play at least decent D.
I love the view that defending is easy when you don't have to defend - is that the case with this team?
Our issues in our end do not go away by adding more offense - unless that player is also capable in their end.
They don't have to be great defenders but they need to deal with playing in their end - unless you're suggesting that doesn't happen? Chicken and egg discussion - you can't be on the offense all night - it's transitionary and usually starts from your end of the ice.
Hunter368
RIP lomiller1, see you in the next life buddy.
- Nov 8, 2011
- 27,403
- 24,557
As I said I would be totally on board trading Nate, but swapping out Nate for Ville reduces or at redistributes the cap but overall I don’t see any better results as far as the D goes.
Yes they also have to defend at a competent level as well. One of the big issues why we get stuck in our end is our defenses inability to make good breakouts. That is another area that I would expect Ville to help the team. Ville at his best plays that exact type of game in the AHL where he's competent defensively, moves the puck out of his end very well and helps maintain offensive zone time with his vision and passing.
I'm just arguing there is more then one archetype out there that can have a positive impact all over the ice.
That's not at all what I'm suggesting, as I suspect you know.
Integrating youth was a big part of Jets' success in our glory year of 2017-18. Not all of that youth was blue-chip.
So no, we didn't need a lineup of 19 year-olds. But neither Samberg nor Stanley were raw 19 year olds during the years we were fielding plugs that were not and would not be part of the org going forward.
Some prospects need all that seasoning. Some don't. A true draft and dev org that has ambitions to be a perennial playoff team and usual contender needs to have its prospect pipeline full and delivering prospects on time and ready as consistently as possible, IMO.
Last edited:
voyageur
Hockey fanatic
- Jul 10, 2011
- 10,463
- 9,826
I think there's an answer to that. First the top 2 LD after Enstrom retired, and then Chiarot left via free agency, were Morrissey and Kulikov. Kulikov replacing Stuart, who was replaced in injury by Chiarot, so successfully that Kulikov only got back in when Enstrom retired. Whether Kulikov was any good or not is contentious but he was a $4 million d-man, so not a plug, and generally viewed as an upgrade on Stuart.
Now you look at the lineup with Buff on paper that was expected for 2019-2020, and it is something like Morrissey-Buff, Kulikov-Pionk, ?-Poolman. Could have been Samberg-Poolman, which would have been very mobile but the kid chose a 3rd year of college, and that was a bit of a monkey wrench, so you plug. The other thing is that it didn't have to be Morrissey-Buff, the Jets could have paired Buff with anyone, whether it be Stanley, Niku, etc. and I think he was good enough to protect those players. So the team wasn't all that poorly built, clear #1, 2 and 3, a good developed PKer in Poolman making the jump, and Kulikov, so there's a base. it just went to hell in one September. Which ends up with Dahlstrom off waivers, then Sbisa, replacing an injured Niku.
I think losing Buff is a big reason why Dillon was traded for subsequently, because the team got absolutely run over by the Flames, in a dogfight. I mean Forbort short term was good enough to help the PK significantly, replacing Kulikov, but that the Jets thought they need an upgrade, and Chevy was probably right. Samberg struggled his first year on the Moose. Heinola brought no physicality, and Stanley had an injury prone setback year. I mean in hindsight it was probably unnecessary to trade for Dillon but I understand it. Beaulieu's contract was signed for the expansion draft, not expecting much of a leap from Stanley, so at the time it made sense, I guess.
Schmidt was meant to replace the loosey goosey part of Buff's character that the team lost. And some of his offense. That was an upgrade on Poolman, and the results well I'm not sure what we got. He seems to fit in so that's good, and he's playing better defensively this year.
Everything that happened I'm sure happened because of Buff leaving.
I mean it's a nice problem to have, having all these ELC prospects maturing, and potentially being impact players, I think that's what any GM would want. This is the last year we get that luxury, it's back to developing prospects (Kuzmin, Salomonsson, Johannesson, plus Bauer) again next season, which probably is a 2 year maturation period, so this is the best time for young talent in the Jets history.
- Dec 29, 2016
- 7,718
- 14,078
Yes, puck movement is part of it - another part is winning puck battles so you can initiate a good breakout.
In my most humble opinion, our D need to be able to do both of those things to be decent defenders.
- Status
