Winnipeg Jets going into the 24/25 season

[ps241]

Yup.
Was that because Avs countered Jets strengths? Or was it because Jets forgot what got them there and/or failed to execute?

We returned to Winnipeg Jets playoff form. Maybe get a game but always lose “FORE” in a row before cleaning out the locker.

 

[Buffdog]

But given that scoring moments are so rare you can say the exact same thing about all players. A player like James Wright is exactly the same as either Scheifele or Ehlers the vast majority of the time. Wright even generated scoring opportunities if you want to go there. But he could never convert on them. It is only that small minority of the time that differentiates between the good players and the bad ones.

Bingo... except the McDavids of the world that have points on over 40% of their team's goals

So not all players, but almost all players. Even putting James Wright in the top 6 would get him more points than he's used to, and dropping Ehlers down to the bottom six would cut his totals. Stats guys have been pretty clear with the fact that quality of linemates is the most important factor in point totals

All this again just to say that we won't be crippled without Ehlers, as much as I like his and hope he extends

 

[ps241]

i've said for years - to the dismay of many on here - the Jets drafting was really good when they were the constant top-10-15 picks early on. Helle ofc was an excellent selection, the Jets waiting essentially 12 rounds to select him was master-class (being tongue in cheek here). but really from '11-'16, they were missing the POs constantly and picking high, & the one PO year they were a mid-1st (17th) in possibly the greatest draft ever. so the quality is a lot different vs now.

anyway, none of your post really answers the questions i posed. i understand the Jets drafted v early and got all these good players. which is why i don't think the comparison to 17-18 team vs now doesn't necessarily fit. the 17-18 team had youth to the quality of laine, connor, ehlers, trouba and morrissey. that's half a top-6 and a top-pair. who is coming on ELC as 21U (21 & under) at FWD at that high of production or quality? or 23U at D?

I went back and read you post. I’m not sure what questions your posed (Legit lost me)? To be clear I do not think the Jets will be able to duplicate 2017-18 in that same fashion. If you can reword your question I would be more than happy trying to answer.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Moving KC is probably a lot easier honestly and likely would get a much better return but I think it makes us a much worse team overall. Do we need to pair him with a better C? Absolutely. Would he net that better C? Unlikely. Losing Ehlers makes us a worse team as well but I think its more easier to digest because KC provides a lot more goals whereas Ehlers is more of a possession player. A really good one but also one that doesn't really provide as much as he probably should based on what he does.

We are in an interesting spot because we just resigned our only true top 6 C and our franchise goalie to long term extensions which will finish out their careers here. Scheif is likely already starting to slip to 2C territory but Helle is probably going to be a solid keeper well into his mid 30's and possibly even later. And our only true top pairing defencemen is also signed to decent term.

We have three really solid pieces signed long term but we need to be able to get the talent to surround them. We have a bunch of interesting young pieces like Lambert, Barlow, McGroarty, Heinola, Salomonsson, Chibrikov and Lucius who could potentially come in and contribute to that over the coming years but we are really short on some important positions.

We need another top 6 C and likely one that will push Scheif down to 2C. We need another top pairing defencemen, preferably right handed but we could make two strong pairings if a lefty emerges. If we get those then we can be a contender I think but that's a tall ask and one that isn't likely unless some of our prospects really blossom over the next year or two. It's happened to other teams before so I can see it happening to us but I'm not counting on it,

So in the meantime we need to roll with the punches. If Ehlers camp leaked this no extension info out, and I believe they did because officially we cannot discuss an extension with Nik until July 1st, then we should act accordingly and make our move. It's more palatable to me because he just continously no shows in the playoffs more so than any other player on the roster really and it's getting tiring watching an elite player become sub replacement level the moment the playoffs start year after year. I think we just wait until July 1st, feel out some offers, see if he's willing to sign elsewhere and if so we make the move. Bonus points if we can turn him into another top 6 F or top 4 D if not then there is nothing wrong with a draft and develop team turning an expiring asset into futures. Especially since we have moved out a 1st, a 2nd and a 3rd over the coming two drafts, something that is pivotal to keeping the carousel spinning.

I could rehash some old arguments here but there is no point. This post is not wrong. I don't think it is entirely right either but there is one statement I have to take issue with. "there is nothing wrong with a draft and develop team turning an expiring asset into futures". That assumes we are a draft and develop team. If we were that we would not have moved out a 1st, 2nd and 3rd over the coming 2 drafts. We would not have lost players because of a lack of room on the roster. And, more importantly, we would not have committed to Scheifele and Helle for the next 7 years. Those commitments make us a win now team for the next 2-3 years at least. Moving Ehlers for futures flies in the face of that. At least unless the futures are NHL ready prospects that have potential to fill some of the holes in the roster right away.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Bingo... except the McDavids of the world that have points on over 40% of their team's goals

So not all players, but almost all players. Even putting James Wright in the top 6 would get him more points than he's used to, and dropping Ehlers down to the bottom six would cut his totals. Stats guys have been pretty clear with the fact that quality of linemates is the most important factor in point totals

All this again just to say that we won't be crippled without Ehlers, as much as I like his and hope he extends

Even look at a McDavid. He had points on ~45% of Oilers G. Ehlers had pts in ~25% of Jets G. Give Ehlers McDavids PP TOI and how close would they be? OK, on our PP Ehlers wouldn't pick up nearly as many pts as McD gets on the PP, but it would be closer than it is without the PP TOI. How much of McDavids TOI is in that nothing happening period you identified? Still most of it.

I think it really is ALL players, just not quite equally. But close. So I don't think that is a valid way of looking at it. Interesting though.

Will we be crippled without Ehlers? Well, we play without him in the PO because he doesn't show up - and we are crippled. But realistically that depends on a couple of things. What do we get in return? 1. A good player or 2 who may be of a lesser impact will still make up for part of the loss. 2. Whoever replaces him as a winger on the 2nd line will also absorb some of the loss. So I think it is hyperbolic to claim that we will be crippled. But we will almost certainly be somewhat weaker in the regular season. How much weaker remains to be seen.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

When you're talking "Ehlers vs Schief", you're talking relative terms. I'm talking absolute terms

I think that maybe you don't understand the difference. Relative terms can make small changes in absolute chances look significant, even it they aren't

I've used this analogy before... let's say that I have a magic pill that increases your chances of sleeping with a supermodel by 1000X. I'll sell it to you for $5000

On the surface, that looks great. Until you realize that right now, you only have a 0.000001% chance of sleeping with a super model and the pill would increase your chances to 0.001%. So you still have a 99.999% chance of never sleeping with a supermodel.

The 1000X is the relative difference, but the absolute difference is 0.000999%.

Would you use the relative difference or the absolute difference when deciding whether or not to drop the $5000 on my magic pill?

You're using the relative differences with and without Ehlers to determine his impact. I'm using the absolute difference

I absolutely understand the difference. Whenever we are talking about a players ability to contribute to W and L we are talking relative to some alternative. It doesn't make sense to do it in absolute terms. That is looking at it in a vacuum. Typically the stats guys use what they call a replacement level player. Some mythical player who is legit NHL level, but only just. The reason we are looking specifically at Scheif vs Ehlers here is because we are talking about the effects of playing them together or apart.

But I am interested in your big picture vs small POV. William Nylander is a player who can reasonably be compared to Ehlers. He was drafted 1 spot earlier the same year. The 2 have somewhat similar skill sets. They've played an almost identical # of games. Nylander has had better linemates and has scored more but not so much more as to make the comp unfair. What would your big picture analysis have to say about Nylander? Is he also contributing a drop in the bucket? Or is his contribution more significant?

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Check your math... there are 3 forwards on the ice for each goal differential

Not following your point here. The differential is 110G. Ehlers was a +87, or at least that is the number I saw posted. How is my math any different than when we say McD was in on 45% of Oilers G this year? Is it better if I say that Ehlers was in on 79% of the differential?

 

[LowLefty]

I could rehash some old arguments here but there is no point. This post is not wrong. I don't think it is entirely right either but there is one statement I have to take issue with. "there is nothing wrong with a draft and develop team turning an expiring asset into futures". That assumes we are a draft and develop team. If we were that we would not have moved out a 1st, 2nd and 3rd over the coming 2 drafts. We would not have lost players because of a lack of room on the roster. And, more importantly, we would not have committed to Scheifele and Helle for the next 7 years. Those commitments make us a win now team for the next 2-3 years at least. Moving Ehlers for futures flies in the face of that. At least unless the futures are NHL ready prospects that have potential to fill some of the holes in the roster right away.

I agree with your comments on draft and develop -
I think that used to be the plan - but it has since changed to something else

My 2 cents:
We are now a team that strives for a PO birth with what we have plus a bit of deadline tinkering, and a simple game plan - I already posted something on this but there's more to it. I feel the reduced game attendance numbers have created concerns with the org and they are slipping off the D/D mentality to what might be called a hybrid model (although that's debatable). To stop the bleeding, they sign the 2 core pcs long term and fall into a patch work model in order to maintain a roster that will make the PO's.

The wild card in all of this (IMO), is the game style they have adopted. The only way they can stay on pace as a PO team and also maintain the dream of contending (assuming we are trading away our pics and adding mid level content at the deadline), is to convert to a game style that will allow them to do these things with less talent (and a good goaltender). Namely, a D first game that required a lot of discipline, work and character. This might explain why they are so entrenched with the bottom 6 as a shutdown group, grinder as the captain, and low scoring affairs that give the top 6 a fighting chance in outscoring the opposition. It might also explain why they like to talk about the "room" a lot (character) as if it's a core pce of the game plan.

So to continue with this assumption (opinion) you have a plan that requires a defensive approach (check), a solid room (check), a good goaltender (check), decent but not great prospects (check), a group that can stick to the plan and work hard (in progress), and, if the stars align, enough skill to go all the way (that's the dream part).

I see this as Chevy's plan - and I don't really see him looking beyond this. If I was in his shoes, this is probably the safest bet if you believe the org is measuring success based on making the PO's and maintaining attendance.

I don't see a lot of D/D in this plan. Perfetti / Ville might disagree

 

[Buffdog]

Not following your point here. The differential is 110G. Ehlers was a +87, or at least that is the number I saw posted. How is my math any different than when we say McD was in on 45% of Oilers G this year? Is it better if I say that Ehlers was in on 79% of the differential?

I thought it was +27. Regardless... I'm saying you have to ignore the overall team goal differential if you want to look at it in absolute terms, like I'm trying to get you to do

You're looking at it like you'd look at air travel if you only focused on the plane crashes. I'm looking at it like you'd look at air travel if you looked at the proportion of time that planes DON'T crash

Because the reality is that airliners rarely crash. And Nik Ehlers rarely has a direct input into the outcome of a game (as is the same with almost all players)

 

[WolfHouse]

I thought it was +27. Regardless... I'm saying you have to ignore the overall team goal differential if you want to look at it in absolute terms, like I'm trying to get you to do

You're looking at it like you'd look at air travel if you only focused on the plane crashes. I'm looking at it like you'd look at air travel if you looked at the proportion of time that planes DON'T crash

Because the reality is that airliners rarely crash. And Nik Ehlers rarely has a direct input into the outcome of a game (as is the same with almost all players)

When Ehlers is healthy and plays 82 games, we average over 100 points a season...

 

[ps241]

Friedman saying on his 32 thoughts Podcast Sunday that Brendan Dillon will test free agency. Elliotte Friedman also said it appears to be a very good market if you are a Defenseman, they are going to get paid.

 

[surixon]

I agree with your comments on draft and develop -
I think that used to be the plan - but it has since changed to something else

My 2 cents:
We are now a team that strives for a PO birth with what we have plus a bit of deadline tinkering, and a simple game plan - I already posted something on this but there's more to it. I feel the reduced game attendance numbers have created concerns with the org and they are slipping off the D/D mentality to what might be called a hybrid model (although that's debatable). To stop the bleeding, they sign the 2 core pcs long term and fall into a patch work model in order to maintain a roster that will make the PO's.

The wild card in all of this (IMO), is the game style they have adopted. The only way they can stay on pace as a PO team and also maintain the dream of contending (assuming we are trading away our pics and adding mid level content at the deadline), is to convert to a game style that will allow them to do these things with less talent (and a good goaltender). Namely, a D first game that required a lot of discipline, work and character. This might explain why they are so entrenched with the bottom 6 as a shutdown group, grinder as the captain, and low scoring affairs that give the top 6 a fighting chance in outscoring the opposition. It might also explain why they like to talk about the "room" a lot (character) as if it's a core pce of the game plan.

So to continue with this assumption (opinion) you have a plan that requires a defensive approach (check), a solid room (check), a good goaltender (check), decent but not great prospects (check), a group that can stick to the plan and work hard (in progress), and, if the stars align, enough skill to go all the way (that's the dream part).

I see this as Chevy's plan - and I don't really see him looking beyond this. If I was in his shoes, this is probably the safest bet if you believe the org is measuring success based on making the PO's and maintaining attendance.

I don't see a lot of D/D in this plan. Perfetti / Ville might disagree

Agreed, we haven't been D/D for a while now. It's pretty much assemble a roster that can get us in to maintain fan engagement and sell tickets.

I'm curious how long this core can keep it up if we just keep rearranging the middling depth on the team.

I still maintain that we are going to need some kids to really excel to actually transform us into a quality playoff team. But it will be a bit difficult for that if we keep bringing in that middling depth to take roster spots.

 

[Eyeseeing]

Friedman saying on his 32 thoughts Podcast Sunday that Brendan Dillon will test free agency. Elliotte Friedman also said it appears to be a very good market if you are a Defenseman, they are going to get paid.

He’d be crazy not to.
I hope there’s a way to keep him.

 

[ps241]

He’d be crazy not to.
I hope there’s a way to keep him.

I like Brendan and I would/will miss his functional toughness.

 

[Duke749]

We’re sooo taking a step back next year. Which is fine as long as we’re a playoff team. That defense could look really thin next year.

 

[WolfHouse]

We’re sooo taking a step back next year. Which is fine as long as we’re a playoff team. That defense could look really thin next year.

If we lose demelo and Dillon we are not making the playoffs...

 

[Cotton Eye Joe]

If we lose demelo and Dillon we are not making the playoffs...

lol

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

I thought it was +27. Regardless... I'm saying you have to ignore the overall team goal differential if you want to look at it in absolute terms, like I'm trying to get you to do

You're looking at it like you'd look at air travel if you only focused on the plane crashes. I'm looking at it like you'd look at air travel if you looked at the proportion of time that planes DON'T crash

Because the reality is that airliners rarely crash. And Nik Ehlers rarely has a direct input into the outcome of a game (as is the same with almost all players)

But the bold is the key.

I have no problem with looking at a bigger picture. But I don't think you have got it quite right. The bigger picture should be the team, not the individual player. In your big picture no player matters. But if you look at the sum of the players some players add a lot more than others.

One of the numbers tossed around was 87. I forget right now which number was what. IIRC 110 was the Jets goal differential over 3 seasons. The sum of Ehlers play over that span contributed to that 110. The sum of Scheifele's play over that time was to subtract from it.

 

[Buffdog]

But the bold is the key.

I have no problem with looking at a bigger picture. But I don't think you have got it quite right. The bigger picture should be the team, not the individual player. In your big picture no player matters. But if you look at the sum of the players some players add a lot more than others.

One of the numbers tossed around was 87. I forget right now which number was what. IIRC 110 was the Jets goal differential over 3 seasons. The sum of Ehlers play over that span contributed to that 110. The sum of Scheifele's play over that time was to subtract from it.

Actually, Schief was net zero I believe

But you're STILL missing the point. Comparing Ehlers to Schief makes it a relative comparison.

For the umpteenth time, I'm talking in absolute terms.

Let's say Air Canada crashes 2X as much as Westjet. Would that sway you to pick one airline over the other?

It shouldn't if one crashes every 500,000,000 flights and the other one crashes once in every 250,000,000... because the chances of it actually affecting you is as close to zero as you can get

You're hung up on the "westjet is twice as safe" argument. I'm saying "who gives a f***". We're looking at the exact same numbers but from different perspectives. You're looking at them through a microscope, I'm looking at them from 30,000 feet

Ehlers is a good player. He makes a positive contribution to the team. But you're overestimating how big that contribution is in the grand scheme of things. Most nights he doesn't move the needle one way or the other with regards to outscoring the opposition.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Actually, Schief was net zero I believe

But you're STILL missing the point. Comparing Ehlers to Schief makes it a relative comparison.

For the umpteenth time, I'm talking in absolute terms.

Let's say Air Canada crashes 2X as much as Westjet. Would that sway you to pick one airline over the other?

It shouldn't if one crashes every 500,000,000 flights and the other one crashes once in every 250,000,000... because the chances of it actually affecting you is as close to zero as you can get

You're hung up on the "westjet is twice as safe" argument. I'm saying "who gives a f***". We're looking at the exact same numbers but from different perspectives. You're looking at them through a microscope, I'm looking at them from 30,000 feet

Ehlers is a good player. He makes a positive contribution to the team. But you're overestimating how big that contribution is in the grand scheme of things. Most nights he doesn't move the needle one way or the other with regards to outscoring the opposition.

Maybe you are right. I'm not getting it. I'm not sure you have a point.

Absolutely Ehlers impact was positive.

Absolutely Scheifele's was not.

2 paragraphs. Not comparing them. 2 separate statements.

Correct me if I am wrong but you have also objected to using rate adjusted stats like pts/60. I would look at Westjet vs AC on a per flight basis. With 3 times the flights and ONLY 2x the crashes AC is safer. If AC has 2x the crashes per flight then Westjet IS safer and yes, I would absolutely pick the safer one over the more dangerous one, all else being equal.

Once again, you are using that 'most nights' thing that applies to every player in the league to only slightly different degrees. According to that thinking we could ice a team of 8 Barrons on wing and 4 Namestnikovs at C, or 8 Appletons and 4 Kuparis.

Edit: You seem to be trying to say that losing any 1 good player doesn't matter because "in the big picture" their contribution is not much. I can see that point, as long as it is just 1 player. We get along OK with 1 player injured all the time. But losing players is cumulative. With Winnipeg's small market problems, we can't afford to keep losing good players without getting a return.

 

[JetsWillFly4Ever]

Actually, Schief was net zero I believe

But you're STILL missing the point. Comparing Ehlers to Schief makes it a relative comparison.

For the umpteenth time, I'm talking in absolute terms.

Let's say Air Canada crashes 2X as much as Westjet. Would that sway you to pick one airline over the other?

It shouldn't if one crashes every 500,000,000 flights and the other one crashes once in every 250,000,000... because the chances of it actually affecting you is as close to zero as you can get

You're hung up on the "westjet is twice as safe" argument. I'm saying "who gives a f***". We're looking at the exact same numbers but from different perspectives. You're looking at them through a microscope, I'm looking at them from 30,000 feet

Ehlers is a good player. He makes a positive contribution to the team. But you're overestimating how big that contribution is in the grand scheme of things. Most nights he doesn't move the needle one way or the other with regards to outscoring the opposition.

I feel like your point is basically coming down to 'no player really moves the needle' and that makes talking about players a pretty boring topic if that is the takeaway.

Ehlers numbers relative to his team, and everyone in the league are very good at 5v5. Just because one player isn't the be all end all doesn't mean that it won't hurt the team if he is gone. The Jets in particular have struggled 5v5 for a few years and losing probably your best 5v5 player will hurt disproportionately so.

 

[Hank Chinaski]

We’re sooo taking a step back next year. Which is fine as long as we’re a playoff team. That defense could look really thin next year.

Yup. Inability to draft/develop defensemen - save for the one home run with JMo - is coming home to roost.

Can only backfill with trades and UFAs for so long.

 

[Buffdog]

Maybe you are right. I'm not getting it. I'm not sure you have a point.

Absolutely Ehlers impact was positive.

Absolutely Scheifele's was not.

2 paragraphs. Not comparing them. 2 separate statements.

Correct me if I am wrong but you have also objected to using rate adjusted stats like pts/60. I would look at Westjet vs AC on a per flight basis. With 3 times the flights and ONLY 2x the crashes AC is safer. If AC has 2x the crashes per flight then Westjet IS safer and yes, I would absolutely pick the safer one over the more dangerous one, all else being equal.

Once again, you are using that 'most nights' thing that applies to every player in the league to only slightly different degrees. According to that thinking we could ice a team of 8 Barrons on wing and 4 Namestnikovs at C, or 8 Appletons and 4 Kuparis.

Why bring up Schief at all if we're talking about Ehlers, if not to compare them?

Not sure if you noticed, but I DID use crashes per number of flights in my example. I deliberately made the number of flights per crash gigantic to illustrate a point, while at the same time making the relative difference also seem significant - also to make my point

Your last paragraph is a misrepresentation of my stance. You should always try to ice a team with as many good players that produce positive outcomes as possible. But downgrading one of them doesn't tank the whole team, which has been my point from the start

I feel like your point is basically coming down to 'no player really moves the needle' and that makes talking about players a pretty boring topic if that is the takeaway.

Ehlers numbers relative to his team, and everyone in the league are very good at 5v5. Just because one player isn't the be all end all doesn't mean that it won't hurt the team if he is gone. The Jets in particular have struggled 5v5 for a few years and losing probably your best 5v5 player will hurt disproportionately so.

Very few players will hurt as much as people are making it seem in this situation. We're talking generational guys, cornerstones of franchises, etc.

For all the *'s associated with Ehlers greatness (5v5, P/60, goal diff, etc), he's a 60 point winger at the end of the day

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Why bring up Schief at all if we're talking about Ehlers, if not to compare them?

Not sure if you noticed, but I DID use crashes per number of flights in my example. I deliberately made the number of flights per crash gigantic to illustrate a point, while at the same time making the relative difference also seem significant - also to make my point

Your last paragraph is a misrepresentation of my stance. You should always try to ice a team with as many good players that produce positive outcomes as possible. But downgrading one of them doesn't tank the whole team, which has been my point from the start


Very few players will hurt as much as people are making it seem in this situation. We're talking generational guys, cornerstones of franchises, etc.

For all the *'s associated with Ehlers greatness (5v5, P/60, goal diff, etc), he's a 60 point winger at the end of the day

OK, fair enough. Ignore Scheifele. Ehlers contribution is a RELATIVELY big plus during the regular season. So he is a big loss, if we don't get a strong return.

I'll give you a big picture vs little picture POV comparison. Looking at moving Ehlers, I have been hoping we get a now return, as close as possible to full value. We are in win now mode so that seems a must.

Some posters are suggesting our return will likely be futures or that the value will be higher if it is futures.

The small picture is 'win now'. But in the big picture futures will pay off down the line. Maybe they mature as Scheifele and Helle decline and the futures are enough to extend our window. I think that is a legitimate big vs small picture situation and everyone can choose for themselves which side to come down on. It is 2 legitimate ways of looking at the situation.

 

[JetsWillFly4Ever]

Very few players will hurt as much as people are making it seem in this situation. We're talking generational guys, cornerstones of franchises, etc.

For all the *'s associated with Ehlers greatness (5v5, P/60, goal diff, etc), he's a 60 point winger at the end of the day

I don't necessarily disagree with your first point but boiling down Ehlers to a 60 point winger I think completely misses the point that points are not the best way to judge a player and all of the numbers provided give a much more accurate depiction of who he is as a player.

I don't think losing Ehlers tanks the season by any means but I find it very hard to think that we won't miss him. We have not had much 5v5 success in our top 6 apart from people playing with him over the past few years tbh.