Prospect Info: Winnipeg Jets Prospects 2017-18

[CorgisPer60]

I'm warming up to Stanley a little bit more but I fear he may be miscast as some big shutdown D when he is more of a threat offensively then anything. He just doesn't have the IQ and foot speed to be a shutdown Dman. He'll need a stable partner and the opportunity to be more of an offensive player if he wants to succeed. With that being said I still stand firm on my Johansen and Clague picks over Stanley. When it comes down to it I have nothing against Stanley and the back of that draft was still littered with defencemen that were tracking better or similar now. We should have gone with the quantity because we sure as heck didn't go with the quality. NHL teams are getting better at identifying the better defencemen in the draft. It's not as accurate as picking top 6C's yet but it's better than it has been. But in the scenario we were in I felt like increasing our odds by taking two dmen in the top 2 rounds was the better choice.

My problem is that teams are still drafting role players instead of drafting players that can play a role.

 

[Daximus]

My problem is that teams are still drafting role players instead of drafting players that can play a role.

Yeah I mean I have no issue with taking a role player, as long as it's not an enforcer, in the back end of the draft.

 

[Whileee]

I don't think Roslovic is ready for the NHL game yet

You're probably right, but I think he's close (especially if he starts on the wing).

 

[garret9]

To adjust for age, here is what my numbers have on Stanley (basically my PCS version):

16 - 25%
17 - 14%
18 - 8%
19 - 20%

Observations:

1. My numbers like Stanley a bit more than PCS did (also after accounting for I have removed more "noise" than PCS has so all players are slightly higher in my model).
2. My numbers like Stanley less than pGPS.
3. This year is his best production, no doubt, since being drafted, even after accounting for average expected growth.
4. He's a legit prospect, but a definite B, not A.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Oh I know that, I'm just suggesting the predominant narrative, it just gets wordy when you tend to run it out like that. I've always been pretty agnostic on the pick. I don't love it and I don't hate it. It's also the second pick of the first round and the first pick was a home run so everything else is gravy. It's a late first round pick, the odds of that individual, regardless of whether they are 6'7" or named Stanley, are stacked against the individual anyway so if he doesn't actually make it it's not particularly surprising. Roslovic, picked around the same spot, is in the same boat but because he's not exceptional in size isn't facing the same scrutiny.

I hope for the best for all our picks and get caught up in the excitement too. But pragmatically speaking there's just no way the odds will favor everyone being useful. We've had a lot of marginal players on this team that have been high first round picks that haven't panned out as well as hoped. Such is life in the NHL.

The reason Roslovic is not getting the same scrutiny has nothing to do with size. It is because his draft year performance supported his draft position. His performance since that time has exceeded expectations for his draft position, by at least a small margin.

The reason the Stanley pick (not Stanley - the pick) is subject to so much 'scrutiny' also has nothing to do with size. It is because his draft year performance did not merit his draft position, much less the trade up to get him. His performance since then has been better than his draft year performance, raising hope but still not quite justifying his draft position. His size figures into the narrative that it somehow justifies his draft position in spite of his lower level performance.

 

[Whileee]

Even if he is a Buffwhisperer he can do his stuff before games and in training

One silver lining is that it seems that this season Maurice will have no problem moving on if he thinks another player will help the team win. He gave shiny new #1 goalie two games before switching to Hellebuyck. If Hendricks continues to perform poorly, he'll sit. But Maurice likely won't take anyone out of a winning line-up unless it's to get core players back like Lowry and Perreault.

 

[Gm0ney]

One silver lining is that it seems that this season Maurice will have no problem moving on if he thinks another player will help the team win. He gave shiny new #1 goalie two games before switching to Hellebuyck. If Hendricks continues to perform poorly, he'll sit. But Maurice likely won't take anyone out of a winning line-up unless it's to get core players back like Lowry and Perreault.

You mean Maurice chooses to keep playing the goalie with the .936 SV% who hasn't yet lost in regulation over the guy who's 0-3-1 with an .872? Genius!

Hendricks seems like Maurice's guy - I think he's going to get a lot of rope. But hopefully Maurice has turned over a new leaf and he'll be willing to pull the trigger quickly if things aren't working out.

 

[Maukkis]

One silver lining is that it seems that this season Maurice will have no problem moving on if he thinks another player will help the team win. He gave shiny new #1 goalie two games before switching to Hellebuyck. If Hendricks continues to perform poorly, he'll sit. But Maurice likely won't take anyone out of a winning line-up unless it's to get core players back like Lowry and Perreault.

Hendricks doesn't deserve a roster spot based on his play, but based on the precedents, he will remain as the 4C for the rest of the year. There are things coaches are simply adamant on, and it seems like Lowry/Hendricks as the bottom six centers is one of them for Maurice.

 

[Channelcat]

My problem is that teams are still drafting role players instead of drafting players that can play a role.

There's been some improvement in terms of gms evaluating big guys anyway. ex Keaton Ellerby went 10th and he wasn't even as good as Stanley in Jr imho.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

There's been some improvement in terms of gms evaluating big guys anyway. ex Keaton Ellerby went 10th and he wasn't even as good as Stanley in Jr imho.

Draft year:
Ellerby - 69 gms, 25 pts -- PO - 4 gms, 3 pts
Stanley - 64 gms, 17 pts -- PO - 5 gms, 1 pt
Ellerby was not good - but he was a little better than Stanley - and he could skate very well. Post draft, Stanley is looking better but that can hardly figure into the draft day decision.

 

[DeepFrickinValue]

Draft year:
Ellerby - 69 gms, 25 pts -- PO - 4 gms, 3 pts
Stanley - 64 gms, 17 pts -- PO - 5 gms, 1 pt
Ellerby was not good - but he was a little better than Stanley - and he could skate very well. Post draft, Stanley is looking better but that can hardly figure into the draft day decision.

how did Buff compare to Stanley at draft? I understand Buff was a late round pick but was his skating a big issue? If so, how did he improve his play.

 

[Gm0ney]

how did Buff compare to Stanley at draft? I understand Buff was a late round pick but was his skating a big issue? If so, how did he improve his play.

0.70 points per game for Brandon and Prince George. The knock was his conditioning, I believe. Still, scoring like that as a 6'5" 18 year old defenseman...

 

[Aavco Cup]

0.70 points per game for Brandon and Prince George. The knock was his conditioning, I believe. Still, scoring like that as a 6'5" 18 year old...

He also came out of nowhere. He was invited to Brandon on a tryout only on the recommendation of a friend of McCrimmon's. He was literally off the radar.

 

[larmex99]

You mean Maurice chooses to keep playing the goalie with the .936 SV% who hasn't yet lost in regulation over the guy who's 0-3-1 with an .872? Genius!

Well, there are HF posters here who have been second guessing PoMo not plugging in .872 goalie guy on a regular basis. I guess they don't understand what it means to have a coach playing for his job.

 

[Daximus]

how did Buff compare to Stanley at draft? I understand Buff was a late round pick but was his skating a big issue? If so, how did he improve his play.

0.70 points per game for Brandon and Prince George. The knock was his conditioning, I believe. Still, scoring like that as a 6'5" 18 year old defenseman...

He also came out of nowhere. He was invited to Brandon on a tryout only on the recommendation of a friend of McCrimmon's. He was literally off the radar.

I remember hearing about him with PG. Big guy, really mobile, boomer of a shot, loved to get involved physically. Thought he'd go higher but didn't. That's the type of gamble pick that you should always make in late rounds. Good on Chicago.

 

[Whileee]

You mean Maurice chooses to keep playing the goalie with the .936 SV% who hasn't yet lost in regulation over the guy who's 0-3-1 with an .872? Genius!

Hendricks seems like Maurice's guy - I think he's going to get a lot of rope. But hopefully Maurice has turned over a new leaf and he'll be willing to pull the trigger quickly if things aren't working out.

Yeah, I meant that Maurice is going to play the players that he thinks will help him win. He might be completely out to lunch about Hendricks' performance, but I highly doubt he'll keep him in the line-up because he's loquacious on the bench.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

0.70 points per game for Brandon and Prince George. The knock was his conditioning, I believe. Still, scoring like that as a 6'5" 18 year old defenseman...

..... got him drafted in the 8th round.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

He also came out of nowhere. He was invited to Brandon on a tryout only on the recommendation of a friend of McCrimmon's. He was literally off the radar.

Also - it took him until D+5 to make it in the NHL.

 

[Daximus]

Also - it took him until D+5 to make it in the NHL.

And even then it was as a forward.

 

[Whileee]

To adjust for age, here is what my numbers have on Stanley (basically my PCS version):

16 - 25%
17 - 14%
18 - 8%
19 - 20%

Observations:

1. My numbers like Stanley a bit more than PCS did (also after accounting for I have removed more "noise" than PCS has so all players are slightly higher in my model).
2. My numbers like Stanley less than pGPS.
3. This year is his best production, no doubt, since being drafted, even after accounting for average expected growth.
4. He's a legit prospect, but a definite B, not A.

Do you buy adjustment for point production by strength? In d+1 and d+2 combined, so far only 24% of Stanley's points are on the PP. I think I read an article that indicated that non-PP point production was more than twice as strongly associated with NHL success (games played) than PP point production (for CHL defensemen).

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

And even then it was as a forward.

I know Buff played F when the Hawks won the SC in '10 but I've never known how much he played each position before that. I had thought that was relatively recent.

 

[garret9]

Do you buy adjustment for point production by strength? In d+1 and d+2 combined, so far only 24% of Stanley's points are on the PP. I think I read an article that indicated that non-PP point production was more than twice as strongly associated with NHL success (games played) than PP point production (for CHL defensemen).

I do adjust but I don’t get nearly even close to that stratosphere of a difference in impact.

Intuitively it makes sense since it’s the elite few that make it, so simply being considered good enough to make the PP generally is one green light.

In addition you can get huge fluctuations in season to season percentage of scoring being on PP.

Ie: adjusted > all > ev > pp is what I find.

 

[Daximus]

I know Buff played F when the Hawks won the SC in '10 but I've never known how much he played each position before that. I had thought that was relatively recent.

Start of the 07/08 Season in Rockford they moved him to wing, put up 7 point in 8 games and got the call up played forward there until he was traded to Atlanta. Then they moved him back to defence. Played a bit of wing with us as well in the 13/14 season. It was the main reason he didn't garner a single Norris vote that year, something he has done every single season he has played defence.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Start of the 07/08 Season in Rockford they moved him to wing, put up 7 point in 8 games and got the call up played forward there until he was traded to Atlanta. Then they moved him back to defence. Played a bit of wing with us as well in the 13/14 season. It was the main reason he didn't garner a single Norris vote that year, something he has done every single season he has played defence.

Thanks. Knew about the F time with us but not before. The Norris votes thing is kind of funny because he played his best (IMO) after moving back to D that year.

 

[WiscoJet]

Koves doing Koves things

With a 1st Period Primary Assist