Can’t we just wait to make 10 years worth of projections based on league-wide averages after Jones plays lets say a full season in Chicago? When he adjusts to playing in a new team, new city, with different role, pressure, expectations, likely with his brother on one team…

It is not only about being a possible outlier, the trajectory might be the same, but one good season can pull the whole vector considerably up on that WAR scale. Just like one really bad season, at least by the numbers, can pull it down.
- stonefire

Well, it's only 8 years because that's the contract length, not 10.

And the model does actually adjust up for the new year and positive impact it might have - it's just not up to where he was previously. If Jones only has one statistically bad season under his belt, the model wouldn't be so negative but it's a two-year sample with trend down in the other third farthest at the end. One good season wouldn't counteract that - it'd think it's an outlier. He's need another two-year sample for it to adjust.

Also maybe I'm being pessimistic but I'd argue the situation in Chicago isn't really going to help Jones much considering how poorly the Hawks have performed.

Here we go again with this chart. How delusional can someone be thinking a chart telling me a 26 year old that’s going into his prime and has shown he’s a #1 defenseman and being ELITE is gonna have a decline in play in that regard heading into his prime years, seriously, that’s what you hang your hat on? Just insanity, I’m sorry!!!!
- rwilliams88

The chart is also showing his actual performance when you are claiming he is ELITE when the numbers show he clearly is far from elite and getting further away every season but keep thinking the trend is going to magically reverse itself when he doesn't have a partner like Werenski to bolster him.

First, calm down bro, it's just a chart.

Second, why can't I take it seriously when it's been accurate across a huge number of simulations? Again, it's based on historical data so it's not random. It's even compares based on TOI to adjust for how top-pair guys tend to be more effective longer than.

Age decline at 27 is common, it's just a minor decline until age 30-31 when it becomes more distinct. It's still prime years but there's also a slope down for most d-men. Which is exactly what that chart is saying too. I mean, it's a -0.1 change from 27-32 actually which is super minor. The issue is that Jones' decline the last two seasons was so sharp, the starting point is lower.

The model also even compensates to acknowledge Jones isn't as bad as his numbers this past season (why it has a +0.4 jump in 2021-22) but it's rare for a drop past age 25 to reverse completely based on history. Again, Jones could be the outlier there but the model is based on actual trends over a huge sample of players and is very accurate as a whole.
- L_B_R

I’m totally calm but for someone to tell me or anyone for that matter that a 26 year old is gonna decline year after year before he hits 32 is just crazy. There’s so many factors that come in play in why he had a off year during covid. Not one of them is that he has suddenly lost his skills to play hockey. If he was 33, I get it. In this instance, totally inaccurate

Well, it's only 8 years because that's the contract length, not 10.

And the model does actually adjust up for the new year and positive impact it might have - it's just not up to where he was previously. If Jones only has one statistically bad season under his belt, the model wouldn't be so negative but it's a two-year sample with trend down in the other third farthest at the end. One good season wouldn't counteract that - it'd think it's an outlier. He's need another two-year sample for it to adjust.

Also maybe I'm being pessimistic but I'd argue the situation in Chicago isn't really going to help Jones much considering how poorly the Hawks have performed.
- L_B_R

I could even understand the argument if it was one site showing Jones numbers being horrid. Its across several different site all saying the same thing.

The chart is also showing his actual performance when you are claiming he is ELITE when the numbers show he clearly is far from elite and getting further away every season but keep thinking the trend is going to magically reverse itself when he doesn't have a partner like Werenski to bolster him.
- Elbows15

We will agree to disagree, that’s all. I want to have this conversation again at the end of the season when you actually watch him play, fair enough?

@MarkLazerus

Blackhawks VP of amateur scouting Mark Kelley on not picking now till No. 62: "I'm gonna put my head on the pillow and hope the phone rings and Stan's telling me we have another second-round pick."



Not sure, but I read that as him feeling a bit like they may have wasted the 1st round pick?

Not even for D-man. Kane is the only player I can think of that signed for 8 years who has been worth that term. And even he started to show some chinks toward the end of this season.
- Gramps28

8 years at 27 or later is def hard for forwards too, yep. Though forwards tend to peak a bit younger and can have a longer prime plateau / minor decline period.

I think most 27 yo guys shouldn't be signed for more than 6 years for a high cap hit. 33 is still outside the prime years but it's usually safe enough to include on the off chance they maintain longer and/or okay for the risk for 1-2 years. Like take Keith, his last true elite season was at 32/33 but he was still top pair for a couple of years after.

Well, it's only 8 years because that's the contract length, not 10.

And the model does actually adjust up for the new year and positive impact it might have - it's just not up to where he was previously. If Jones only has one statistically bad season under his belt, the model wouldn't be so negative but it's a two-year sample with trend down in the other third farthest at the end. One good season wouldn't counteract that - it'd think it's an outlier. He's need another two-year sample for it to adjust.

Also maybe I'm being pessimistic but I'd argue the situation in Chicago isn't really going to help Jones much considering how poorly the Hawks have performed.
- L_B_R

I am not sure if the situation will help Jones either (I an optimist, though), just saying the situation will be quite different for him, on various levels. That is an influential variable, one way or another.

We will agree to disagree, that’s all. I want to have this conversation again at the end of the season when you actually watch him play, fair enough?
- rwilliams88

That's fine but to assume I haven't watch him play plenty is kinda asinine.

@MarkLazerus

Blackhawks VP of amateur scouting Mark Kelley on not picking now till No. 62: "I'm gonna put my head on the pillow and hope the phone rings and Stan's telling me we have another second-round pick."



Not sure, but I read that as him feeling a bit like they may have wasted the 1st round pick?
- pdx2ord

Bowman being bowman thinking he is the smartest person in the room when he clearly is not. You don't give out contract like that when you have whole year to assess is true value. Plus Columbus had no leverage in this trade 11 th and boqvist woulda been enough. Hope hawks can land colton dach in the second round and trade strome and Zadorov for something.

8 years at 27 or later is def hard for forwards too, yep. Though forwards tend to peak a bit younger and can have a longer prime plateau / minor decline period.

I think most 27 yo guys shouldn't be signed for more than 6 years for a high cap hit. 33 is still outside the prime years but it's usually safe enough to include on the off chance they maintain longer and/or okay for the risk for 1-2 years. Like take Keith, his last true elite season was at 32/33 but he was still top pair for a couple of years after.
- L_B_R

5 years for me but I agree with the rest. Once they hit 30, 4 years is my absolute max. If it has to be a bit higher AAV, then so be it.

8 years at 27 or later is def hard for forwards too, yep. Though forwards tend to peak a bit younger and can have a longer prime plateau / minor decline period.

I think most 27 yo guys shouldn't be signed for more than 6 years for a high cap hit. 33 is still outside the prime years but it's usually safe enough to include on the off chance they maintain longer and/or okay for the risk for 1-2 years. Like take Keith, his last true elite season was at 32/33 but he was still top pair for a couple of years after.
- L_B_R

Oh I get that. But nobody is trying to throw wool over anyone’s eyes, including GM’s. They are paying for a players play to the age of 32-33. That’s why the last couple of years are much insignificant in pay than the years prior. It’s part of the game. You are paying for his prime and that’s not gonna decline in the next few years, I’m sorry.

@MarkLazerus

Blackhawks VP of amateur scouting Mark Kelley on not picking now till No. 62: "I'm gonna put my head on the pillow and hope the phone rings and Stan's telling me we have another second-round pick."



Not sure, but I read that as him feeling a bit like they may have wasted the 1st round pick?
- pdx2ord

Maybe he just means he wants a chance to select an additional player.

That's fine but to assume I haven't watch him play plenty is kinda asinine.
- Elbows15

Then go with what you’ve seen, not throw charts out there. Throwing charts out there’s makes me believe otherwise

I’m totally calm but for someone to tell me or anyone for that matter that a 26 year old is gonna decline year after year before he hits 32 is just crazy. There’s so many factors that come in play in why he had a off year during covid. Not one of them is that he has suddenly lost his skills to play hockey. If he was 33, I get it. In this instance, totally inaccurate
- rwilliams88

Maybe don't throw in some many exclamation marks then cause it's throwing off the calm vibe lol.

You seem to be thinking the chart is saying he's going to fall off a cliff at 27 (which is his age in like 2 months btw) - it's not. It's saying he'll have a very normal minor decline as absolutely most d-men do. Some plateau but it's often a small bump down. Just because there is a small year-over-year decline doesn't mean a player isn't still useful in those years, either. Then around 32, the decline will speed up. Which is accurately what happens with most players.

Again, decades worth of information about players is included in this and other models just like it. They all have practically the same conclusion.

Like he's another - same data with slightly different weights:

Then go with what you’ve seen, not throw charts out there. Throwing charts out there’s makes me believe otherwise
- rwilliams88

Prob shouldn't make assumption (cause you know what they say) about how others evaluate players. Those types of charts are just good summations. Bows wouldn't use them if he didn't think the info in them matched what he saw on the ice.

Bowman being bowman thinking he is the smartest person in the room when he clearly is not. You don't give out contract like that when you have whole year to assess is true value. Plus Columbus had no leverage in this trade 11 th and boqvist woulda been enough. Hope hawks can land colton dach in the second round and trade strome and Zadorov for something.
- Scott1977

Dach would be a nice add tomorrow, but it will be hard to predict who’ll be there when the Hawks draft next (barring a trade). The Hawks went off the board with their 1st round pick, but they weren’t the only team to do so.

Hopefully Stan trades Zadorov tomorrow, but the way this off-season is going I fully expect him to be signed to a long-term deal soon.

The Hawks will probably keep Strome for now, it doesn’t sound like it’s guaranteed that Toews will be back for the start of the season.

Maybe don't throw in some many exclamation marks then cause it's throwing off the calm vibe lol.

You seem to be thinking the chart is saying he's going to fall off a cliff at 27 (which is his age in like 2 months btw) - it's not. It's saying he'll have a very normal minor decline as absolutely most d-men do. Some plateau but it's often a small bump down. Just because there is a small year-over-year decline doesn't mean a player isn't still useful in those years, either. Then around 32, the decline will speed up. Which is accurately what happens with most players.

Again, decades worth of information about players is included in this and other models just like it. They all have practically the same conclusion.

Like he's another - same data with slightly different weights:

- L_B_R

I know he’s almost 27, I get that. So let’s say as a 27 year old, it’s common for them to decline going forward, even at a marginal pace. That’s common? 27 year olds don’t get better? So they’re prime is what 23-27? Again, I disagree.

Prob should make assumption (cause you know what they say) about how others evaluate players. Those types of charts are just good summations. Bows wouldn't use them if he didn't think the info in them matched what he saw on the ice.
- L_B_R

Again if Seth Jones was 31 or so, I’d understand it. He’s 26 (about to be 27). Those charts mean nothing, sorry.

Oh I get that. But nobody is trying to throw wool over anyone’s eyes, including GM’s. They are paying for a players play to the age of 32-33. That’s why the last couple of years are much insignificant in pay than the years prior. It’s part of the game. You are paying for his prime and that’s not gonna decline in the next few years, I’m sorry.
- rwilliams88

I think the confusion is that I'm not saying prime years can't go until 32/33 - I'm agree that they do. But even in the prime years, players have minor year-over-year natural age decline. It's still prime but there's still slide, they're not mutually exclusive states.

Also, 7-8 year contracts at UFA age of 27/28 goes to age 35/36, so they're obviously paying for more than prime years. It's typically a cost incentive. Jones is signed until his 35th year (he'll be just a couple month short of 35).

I'm not sure arguing that GMs give these deals so they must be good is exactly the swing you think it is. Most UFA-aged deals over 6 years end up being bad. Of the d-men who have higher than $7m cap hits in recent years, which of these guys would you consider is still elite: Karlsson (year 3 in 2021-22, age 31), Doughty (year 3, age 31), Ekman-Larsson (year 3, age 30), Carlson (year 4, age 31), Burns (year 5, age 35), Vlasic (year 4, age 34)...

Hedman (year 5, age 30) is one of the few that looks like it could be solid for a majority of the contract's life. Josi (year 2, age 31) is still very good right now but he signed later than 27/28.

Forced to watch Olympic ceremony with other Japanese families and I missed out on the internet blowing up over the Jones trade. What the-

9.5M over 8? That's nuts!!! That's the worst part of the trade. Now we're handcuffed down the road. Jones will start an even further decline at 30... Didn't Stan learn anything from the Seabrook deal? Seabrook was a winner!

Imagine if Dach/Kubalik have big years next year and Murphy has a decent year? It's not pretty.
- Popsghostly

So you were the one watching.

In all honesty they are expecting massive ratings failure and the Japanese are going to lose billions. Should have canceled till next year.

Kenny Williams when GM of the Sox drafted some outfielder who excelled in back flips. He wasn't much of a baseball player though.
- boilermaker100

Was that the outfielder he took instead of Trout?

I know he’s almost 27, I get that. So let’s say as a 27 year old, it’s common for them to decline going forward, even at a marginal pace. That’s common? 27 year olds don’t get better? So they’re prime is what 23-27? Again, I disagree.
- rwilliams88

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying but I legit don't know how to say it in another way so that could be my fault. But yes that's common and no I'm not saying prime is 23-27. I literally said something different.

First, calm down bro, it's just a chart.

Second, why can't I take it seriously when it's been accurate across a huge number of simulations? Again, it's based on historical data so it's not random. It's even compares based on TOI to adjust for how top-pair guys tend to be more effective longer than.

Age decline at 27 is common, it's just a minor decline until age 30-31 when it becomes more distinct. It's still prime years but there's also a slope down for most d-men. Which is exactly what that chart is saying too. I mean, it's a -0.1 change from 27-32 actually which is super minor. The issue is that Jones' decline the last two seasons was so sharp, the starting point is lower.

The model also even compensates to acknowledge Jones isn't as bad as his numbers this past season (why it has a +0.4 jump in 2021-22) but it's rare for a drop past age 25 to reverse completely based on history. Again, Jones could be the outlier there but the model is based on actual trends over a huge sample of players and is very accurate as a whole.
- L_B_R

Using intelligence and smarts scares people. Just saying.

@MarkLazerus

Blackhawks VP of amateur scouting Mark Kelley on not picking now till No. 62: "I'm gonna put my head on the pillow and hope the phone rings and Stan's telling me we have another second-round pick."



Not sure, but I read that as him feeling a bit like they may have wasted the 1st round pick?
- pdx2ord

He’ll wake up to find out Stan traded their existing 2nd round pick for a (late) 3rd round pick and 5th round pick.