HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Winnipeg Jets
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Winnipeg Jets select D Logan Stanley (1/18) Part II (Mod warning in OP)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-28-2016, 04:37 PM
  #26
Whileee
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 25,263
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mortimer Snerd View Post
Just one more perspective on the 22+36 for Stanley ....... thing. TBL traded RHD Anthony DeAngelo to Ari for 37. DeAngelo is very strong offensively. His defense may need a little work. He is almost certainly a better prospect than Stanley and has 3 years of development behind him. If they got him for 37 then surely we could have had him for 36. We could have taken Lucas Johansson with 22 and had a L/R pair.

DeAngelo could have made it that much easier to part with Myers. He will be expansion exempt so right there we could go to 7+3+1. I'm not saying he could replace Myers right away. He might need another year in the A, or not. But his presence gives us a replacement in the system.
There is a reason that high-scoring former 1st round pick DeAngelo was traded for #37, and it's not because TB was doing a big favour for the Coyotes.

Whileee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2016, 04:38 PM
  #27
ps241
Playoff push 2017
 
ps241's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 20,033
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mortimer Snerd View Post
Just one more perspective on the 22+36 for Stanley ....... thing. TBL traded RHD Anthony DeAngelo to Ari for 37. DeAngelo is very strong offensively. His defense may need a little work. He is almost certainly a better prospect than Stanley and has 3 years of development behind him. If they got him for 37 then surely we could have had him for 36. We could have taken Lucas Johansson with 22 and had a L/R pair.

DeAngelo could have made it that much easier to part with Myers. He will be expansion exempt so right there we could go to 7+3+1. I'm not saying he could replace Myers right away. He might need another year in the A, or not. But his presence gives us a replacement in the system.
One of the red flags with DeAngelo was character. Not sure if that factored into this move or not but it seems odd to shuffle a kid out who is so productive?

ps241 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2016, 04:44 PM
  #28
CorgisPer60
Barking at the net
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Please Understand
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,332
vCash: 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whileee View Post
There is a reason that high-scoring former 1st round pick DeAngelo was traded for #37, and it's not because TB was doing a big favour for the Coyotes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ps241 View Post
One of the red flags with DeAngelo was character. Not sure if that factored into this move or not but it seems odd to shuffle a kid out who is so productive?
Both of these. There is no reason Yzerman ships out a former 1st round pick like that unless there are glaring red flags about his character.

CorgisPer60 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2016, 05:22 PM
  #29
raideralex99
Go Jets Go
 
raideralex99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: West Coast
Country: Canada
Posts: 848
vCash: 305
Quote:
Originally Posted by tacogeoff View Post
I think I was disappointed by the pick based on the fact we traded up to select him and from the few playoff games I saw with Windsor this season. I could also be bitter seeing Arizona trading up to grab a falling Chychrun who would of been a nicer prospect at LD.
As many have said it is going to be a boom or bust pick. I see a player which could develop to be a very good stay at home dman with little offensive contribution. That being said I am no expert in body/player development of a person that large which is still growing into his body. I hope he becomes a heck of a player for us.
Chevy could have moved up to take Chychrun ... It's only a few million cap. Who do you want to drop Trouba, Schef, Lowery?
People thinks it's that easy ... it's not. Chevy has a direct line to the accountant just like all the GMs before they can make a trade they get the okay from the accountant.

raideralex99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2016, 05:29 PM
  #30
Mortimer Snerd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,704
vCash: 575
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Little View Post
If I'm correctly reading this as an indictment of the Stanley pick, then again someone's making the case that trends are universal.

Obviously they made the pick hoping Stanley is better than most of those players. Because they mostly busted out doesn't mean that he will. The continued implication that it does is getting pretty ****ing irritating.

Just like Chara has nothing to do with Stanley, neither does McIlrath.
No, no, no. Nobody says that. Of course there are exceptions. The trouble is there is no way to identify the exceptions. If there was they wouldn't be exceptions. They would be the expected results of some other rule.

The point, and the whole point is that the home run swing fails far too often relative to the successes to ever be a smart decision.

Stanley might be the next home run. He might be the next Chara. But they have no reason to believe that. It is just a blind guess and if it works out it will be blind luck. The worst thing is that if it works out it will lead them to make more bad decisions just like it because they will believe they were right.

Guys like those listed and like Stanley should be taken in the 5th or 6th round. Not the first and especially not trading up to get him. Good grief!

Mortimer Snerd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2016, 05:30 PM
  #31
Daximus
Aces Charles
 
Daximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Five Hills
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,439
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whileee View Post
Clague measure 5'11.75" at the NHL Combine.
Close enough for me.

Daximus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2016, 05:37 PM
  #32
YWGinYYZ
Mod Supervisor
 
YWGinYYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,606
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mortimer Snerd View Post
Guys like those listed and like Stanley should be taken in the 5th or 6th round. Not the first and especially not trading up to get him. Good grief!
This is going a bit overboard - he was rated far above that on most lists.

YWGinYYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2016, 05:38 PM
  #33
mazmin
Go! Jets! Go!
 
mazmin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,228
vCash: 500
This pick was shocking at first but we need to trust our Jets brass in the 1st round. They've been terrific so far and to want someone enough to trade up means they see something special in him.

Looking at video his skating is actually quite strong, he ALWAYS has his head up, he lands huge open ice hits and is in incredible shape.

This is one of the first prospects who actually deserves the Chara comparison. Their biggest similarity aside from size and nastiness in drive, focus and work ethic. All attributes that can't be taught.

Stanley is also a really good hockey name. I love what it suggests!

mazmin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2016, 05:58 PM
  #34
irunthepeg
Mark ScheifELITE
 
irunthepeg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: The Peg, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 31,633
vCash: 69
I trust our scouting staff but I also really trust Vito Correlationi... and if he doesn't like the pick then I'm cautiously optimistic about it all. Granted, I didn't see much of the kid but stats alone must not do him justice.

irunthepeg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2016, 06:08 PM
  #35
hurricanedave
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 330
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by YWGinYYZ View Post
This is going a bit overboard - he was rated far above that on most lists.
Going by the Google sheet they have going in the prospects forum, Stanley's average ranking was 40.6, median 30, and he had a st dev of 28.27 (though this is based off something like 12 ratings). Frankly he was one of the better ranked D left on the board at 18, Johansen and Clague had better average rankings but lower median rankings. Not particularly sold on Stanley myself, certainly concerned if he'll be able to develop his offense. But if the Jets were intent on drafting a D at 18 then so be it.

hurricanedave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2016, 06:09 PM
  #36
truck
HFB Partner
 
truck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 9,554
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mazmin View Post
This pick was shocking at first but we need to trust our Jets brass in the 1st round. They've been terrific so far and to want someone enough to trade up means they see something special in him.

Looking at video his skating is actually quite strong, he ALWAYS has his head up, he lands huge open ice hits and is in incredible shape.

This is one of the first prospects who actually deserves the Chara comparison. Their biggest similarity aside from size and nastiness in drive, focus and work ethic. All attributes that can't be taught.

Stanley is also a really good hockey name. I love what it suggests!
All of those plus attributes should lead to dominance. It doesn't. Why? What's missing? The lack of offense always makes me question deployment and hockey sense (ability to read the play at 200 feet). Stanley didn't suffer due to deployment.

truck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2016, 06:09 PM
  #37
YWGinYYZ
Mod Supervisor
 
YWGinYYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,606
vCash: 50
hurricandave: thanks for digging up the details - that's far above a 5th / 6th round selection, obviously. I have my concerns about him, but ranking him that low is a bit much, IMO.

YWGinYYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2016, 06:14 PM
  #38
Whileee
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 25,263
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaximusPrimus View Post
Close enough for me.
Close enough to "sub six feet"?

Whileee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2016, 06:23 PM
  #39
truck
HFB Partner
 
truck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 9,554
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Little View Post
I would accuse you of being nave, but I don't believe for a ****ing second that you actually think that.
If you consider the fact that I wrote it, I'm pretty comfortable speaking on the designs.

truck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2016, 06:25 PM
  #40
Mortimer Snerd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,704
vCash: 575
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Hallenback View Post
You know it is less likely that sub 6 foot D man make it to the NHL then it is for 6'5 plus guys right
You know it is less likely that D men who play poorly in junior make it to the NHL than it is for guys who play well in junior, right?

Don't mean to be pissy, but come on.

Being big can be an advantage if you are also good. It is not an advantage if you are not good.

Mortimer Snerd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2016, 06:30 PM
  #41
tacogeoff
Registered User
 
tacogeoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Killarney, MB
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,139
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by raideralex99 View Post
Chevy could have moved up to take Chychrun ... It's only a few million cap. Who do you want to drop Trouba, Schef, Lowery?
People thinks it's that easy ... it's not. Chevy has a direct line to the accountant just like all the GMs before they can make a trade they get the okay from the accountant.
Let me rephrase my statement. I was bitter seeing Arizona jumping up to take a falling top rated LD....because.......Arizona and I was hoping he would continue dropping. I was disappointed in us jumping up to pick Stanley after the fact and that is just my opinion and nothing more based on what I have seen from him previous to the draft. he is boom or bust but hopefully a big skyscraper type boom.

to your question. Lowry all day if Chevy could of moved up. but obviously there is a lot of cap space/politics/feelings/needs/relationships involved between GMs and organizations which factor in moving up in the draft, plus its all taking place at breakneck speeds.

tacogeoff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2016, 06:36 PM
  #42
Whileee
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 25,263
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hurricanedave View Post
Going by the Google sheet they have going in the prospects forum, Stanley's average ranking was 40.6, median 30, and he had a st dev of 28.27 (though this is based off something like 12 ratings). Frankly he was one of the better ranked D left on the board at 18, Johansen and Clague had better average rankings but lower median rankings. Not particularly sold on Stanley myself, certainly concerned if he'll be able to develop his offense. But if the Jets were intent on drafting a D at 18 then so be it.
Stanley might have been an unwise pick ( I think so), but he wasn't a huge "reach" based on rankings. McKenzie's panel of 10 NHL scouts had him ranked at 22, and clearly the best D available when the Jets were going to select.

He was ranked ahead of Hajek, Cholowski, Johansen and Clague. So, according to a group of ten scouts, he was the best D available.

By the way, Green was ranked at #60 on McKenzie's list, ahead of Dineen and Peeke. Cederholm was ranked at #78. The average ranking of the Jets 2-4 picks was 53. Interestingly, at the beginning of the draft the average draft placement for those Jets picks was 52 (22, 36, 97).

Fun with numbers...

Whileee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2016, 06:41 PM
  #43
Whileee
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 25,263
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mortimer Snerd View Post
You know it is less likely that D men who play poorly in junior make it to the NHL than it is for guys who play well in junior, right?

Don't mean to be pissy, but come on.

Being big can be an advantage if you are also good. It is not an advantage if you are not good.
Very few big D who produce well don't make it. A considerable proportion of small players who produce well don't make it. Many big Dmen who make it didn't produce at 17. Virtually no small D who don't produce at 17 make it.

Whileee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2016, 06:42 PM
  #44
Mortimer Snerd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,704
vCash: 575
Quote:
Originally Posted by jorbjorb View Post
I've come to terms with this pick. He's fackin huge. He doesn't need to put up points. He will be sweet just being on the ice scaring people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jorbjorb View Post
They didn't draft him for his scoring or for his fighting. They drafted him to keep the puck out of the net. Maybe in a few years he can learn to do that well. With luck.

Mortimer Snerd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2016, 06:44 PM
  #45
Mortimer Snerd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,704
vCash: 575
Quote:
Originally Posted by ps241 View Post
One of the red flags with DeAngelo was character. Not sure if that factored into this move or not but it seems odd to shuffle a kid out who is so productive?
Could be. I don't claim to know. You're right that it seemed odd.

Mortimer Snerd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2016, 06:51 PM
  #46
Mortimer Snerd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,704
vCash: 575
Quote:
Originally Posted by YWGinYYZ View Post
This is going a bit overboard - he was rated far above that on most lists.
Yes, I know that. I'm not saying the Jets are the only team dazzled by his size. Its not like this is a rare phenomenon. The rumour is that if we hadn't taken him Detroit would have. Most, if not all teams give in to the temptation to take the home run swing once in a while. That doesn't make it smart. He is a long shot. Does anybody deny that? Long shots should be reserved for the late rounds.

I hope he turns out like Myers. There is no particular reason to believe he will but he certainly might.

Mortimer Snerd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2016, 07:01 PM
  #47
Mortimer Snerd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,704
vCash: 575
Quote:
Originally Posted by YWGinYYZ View Post
hurricandave: thanks for digging up the details - that's far above a 5th / 6th round selection, obviously. I have my concerns about him, but ranking him that low is a bit much, IMO.
I didn't say most (or for that matter any) scouts had him rated that low and THEREFORE the Jets took him too high. Apparently most scouts are, at least sometimes, overly impressed by size.

I'm saying that he is a long shot. That is why he should have been rated for the late rounds. I don't care why he is a long shot, height, weight, intelligence, character etc. Whatever the reason, long shots should be taken late. High value early picks should be spent on high probability players. Note: I am not saying he has no chance of becoming a good player. I'm saying that the odds are against it.

Mortimer Snerd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2016, 07:08 PM
  #48
ComplexChris
#RideTheLAINE
 
ComplexChris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Lainepeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 391
vCash: 500
They placed Logan Stanley on Group A with Connor, Harkins, and Lemieux. They're making me cheer for Stanley. NOOOOOO

ComplexChris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2016, 07:10 PM
  #49
Mortimer Snerd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,704
vCash: 575
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whileee View Post
Stanley might have been an unwise pick ( I think so), but he wasn't a huge "reach" based on rankings. McKenzie's panel of 10 NHL scouts had him ranked at 22, and clearly the best D available when the Jets were going to select.

He was ranked ahead of Hajek, Cholowski, Johansen and Clague. So, according to a group of ten scouts, he was the best D available.

By the way, Green was ranked at #60 on McKenzie's list, ahead of Dineen and Peeke. Cederholm was ranked at #78. The average ranking of the Jets 2-4 picks was 53. Interestingly, at the beginning of the draft the average draft placement for those Jets picks was 52 (22, 36, 97).

Fun with numbers...
I suggest 'clearly the highest rated D available when the Jets were going to select'.

Consensus ratings are not always correct. It seems to that I have seen the Oilers criticized for always taking the consensus #1 instead of occasionally being smart enough to see that Yak was not really that good.

I hated seeing Stanley at 22 on MacKenzie's panel. At every pick I was praying someone else would take him. I may be wrong but he showed every sign of being way overrated because of his size. We see it every year.

Mortimer Snerd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2016, 07:14 PM
  #50
wpgsilver
Moderator
 
wpgsilver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,863
vCash: 50
I don't know if I'm impressed or confused by people who have such firm opinions on a player they have likely seen less than 5 times.

I'm less confident about what I had for lunch than some people are about this prospect or the wisdom of taking him.

__________________
Team Jester
wpgsilver is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:27 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2017 All Rights Reserved.