Winnipeg Sun http://winnipegsun.com/sports/hockey/future-contracts-impact-current-decisions-jets-have-several- more-big-moves-pending

Future contracts impact current decisions: Jets have several more big moves pending

By Ken Wiebe

Kevin Cheveldayoff has often spoken about having to keep a sharp focus on both the present and the future.

And while the present outlook of the Jets is fairly sunny at the moment, still sitting in top spot in the Central Division standings as they close in on returning from the mandatory five- day break, things are about to crank up.

There are four games remaining before the NHL All-star break, including Saturday’s afternoon game with the surging Calgary Flames.

With just under six weeks to go before the NHL trade deadline, there’s a much better chance the Jets plan to add a piece or two instead of either standing pat or substracting – as they did when they were either on the edges of the playoff race or in next-year country.

The general manager of the Jets has locked down two contract extensions already, extending veteran centre Bryan Little for six seasons while getting Nikolaj Ehlers to commit to the organization for six seasons after his entry-level deal expires this summer.

But there are plenty of deals left to be inked by Cheveldayoff and company on the horizon.

The pool of pending unrestricted free agents is relatively low following this season, with forwards Shawn Matthias and Matt Hendricks, defenceman Toby Enstrom and goalie Michael Hutchinson falling in that category.

It’s hard to envision a scenario where Matthias and Hutchinson remain in the organization following this season and it’s possible they could be on the move before the NHL trade deadline.

As for Enstrom, he has spent his entire career with the organization but the only way he’s brought back for another season is if he’s willing to take a massive pay cut from the $5.75 million he’s making in the final year of his deal.

Jets head coach Paul Maurice has praised the addition of Hendricks, but it’s too early to commit to another year before seeing how he handles the stretch drive.

There’s also a significant number of pending restricted free agents that will need new deals, including goalie Connor Hellebuyck, defencemen Jacob Trouba and Josh Morrissey and forwards Adam Lowry, Brandon Tanev, Joel Armia and Marko Dano.

Lowry, Tanev and Armia are likely due slight and manageable raises, while Dano sat out 30 consecutive games and will continue to battle to keep his roster spot as the Jets get back to full health.

A sizeable portion of available cap space will be eaten up by Hellebuyck and Trouba, even if Morrissey is willing to bank on himself and sign a two-year bridge deal.

Trouba’s offensive numbers are down slightly from last season, but he’s second on the Jets in ice time and wants to be paid like a No. 1 defenceman, provided he’s willing to sign a long-term contract.

After betting on himself and stealing back the starting job from Steve Mason, Hellebuyck figures to cash in on his next contract after taking $2.25 million this summer on a one-year pact to avoid arbitration.

It’s not a stretch to think Hellebuyck will double his salary on a longer-term deal.

The work doesn’t end there either.

With second-year winger Patrik Laine going into the final year of his entry-level deal next season, a long-term extension figures to be a priority for Cheveldayoff this summer.

And at the end of the 2018-19 season, both captain Blake Wheeler and defenceman Tyler Myers would be eligible to become unrestricted free agents.

Wheeler is playing the best hockey of his career right now and the Jets best chance to go on a deep run coincides with as long as he’s under contract and what looks like his prime.

While the Jets have worked hard to expand their organizational depth, it’s clear Wheeler has been the engine that drives this group.

Wheeler, 31, is on pace for a career-best in points and was chosen for his first All-star game later this month.

That’s why it seems more likely Cheveldayoff and the Jets are going to bring in an experienced player or two to bolster a roster that has already been near the top of the Western Conference for the bulk of this season.

A look into the future

Pending unrestricted free agents for July 1, 2018 (current salary cap hit) G Michael Hutchinson, $1.15 million in NHL, $125,000 while in minors D Toby Enstrom, $5.75 million LW Shawn Matthias, $2.125 million C Matt Hendricks, $700,000

Pending restricted free agents for July 1, 2018 (current salary cap hit) G Connor Hellebuyck, $2.25 million D Jacob Trouba, $2.8125 million D Josh Morrissey, $863,333 C Adam Lowry, $1.125 million RW Joel Armia, $925,000 LW Marko Dano, $850,000 RW Brandon Tanev, $700,00

Pending unrestricted free agents for July 1, 2019 (current salary cap hit) G Steve Mason, $4.1 million D Tyler Myers, $5.5 million D Ben Chiarot, $1.65 million RW Blake Wheeler, $5.6 million

Pending restricted free agents for July 1, 2019 (current salary cap hit) F Andrew Copp, $1 million RW Patrik Laine, $925,000 LW Kyle Connor, $925,000

The Athletic Winnipeg https://theathletic.com/214566/2018/01/17/an-overtime-story-why-the-jets-are-0-6-in-ot-and-the- one-thing-they-can-do-to-improve/

An overtime story: Why the Jets are 0-6 in OT and the one thing they can do to improve

By Murat Ates

Prior to January’s IR-parade, an awful lot of things had been going well for the .

Take your pick: Winnipeg’s strong play at 5-on-5, the success of its power play, Connor Hellebuyck — they've all been terrific. Even the Jets’ kill has been very good since increasing its puck pressure partway through December. There is a lot to like.

Since went down against on December 27, Winnipeg has gone 5-2-1 and comes out of its bye-week alone atop the NHL’s Central division. I think it’s safe to say times are good.

I’m not even worried about back-to-back losses against Chicago and Minnesota. Instead, I look at their nine games in 18 nights since the holiday break and their 12 games in 23 nights before that and I’m willing to give exhaustion the benefit of the doubt.

For the purposes of this article, I’m going to ignore the Jets’ many areas of strength and focus instead on something they are surprisingly bad at: overtime.

In 2017-18, Winnipeg has played 23 minutes and 16 seconds of overtime hockey and has yet to score a . They’ve been scored on six times, giving them an OT record of 0-6, and they’ve split two shootouts for a 1-6-1 record in extra time. Had Winnipeg won even four of these eight points available to them, the Jets would be sitting alone in first in the West.

With that in mind, I wanted to look at why Winnipeg has been so bad in 3-on-3 overtime. I’ve taken a stopwatch, a spreadsheet, and multiple viewings to all eight of Winnipeg’s overtime periods and I’ve done my best to be a good Winnipegger by focusing on process instead of results.

Possession is paramount To me, 3-on-3 hockey is a game where puck possession is substantially more important than puck position. With so much open ice, zone entries are completed nearly at will.

In the eight games I tracked, Winnipeg successfully gained their opponents’ blueline on 84 per cent of its tries while opposing teams gained the Jets line on 90 per cent of their attempts. In short, it doesn’t matter who you are or where your possession starts – if you can get the puck in OT, you are likely to be able to take it somewhere dangerous.

Also, as Pittsburgh demonstrates in this sequence from October 26, it’s very easy to have a look at the layout of the neutral zone and decide nope:

This is Jake Guentzel on the puck following Pittsburgh’s faceoff win, five seconds into Winnipeg’s first overtime of the season. You can tell from the body language that play has just started and that Guentzel has no real forward momentum. With two Jets between himself and Winnipeg’s zone, Guentzel decides to reverse.

Your new puck carrier is Kris Letang and your new focus is all of that open ice in the neutral zone. Guentzel and Crosby then circle back to Letang and two touch passes set up the following zone entry:

I’ve skipped forward a few seconds but this is Pittsburgh’s first crack at Winnipeg’s zone after reversing it. Once again I’m asking you to go by body language but look how much speed Guentzel has this time around – a successful entry is virtually assured at this point.

Pittsburgh’s reverse isn’t what won them this hockey game – that honour goes to a breakaway by Phil Kessel – but it’s important to introduce this concept right off the bat for two reasons:

These reverses nearly always work Winnipeg is generally reverse averse while its opponents generally are not.

Winnipeg’s more common approach took place during the following night’s loss in Columbus:

Thirty-three seconds into OT, Winnipeg’s trio of Bryan Little, Nik Ehlers, and Dustin Byfuglien have attacked the Blue Jackets' zone like a house on fire. Prior to the frame you see above, Winnipeg spent almost 30 seconds in the attacking zone generating shots and recovering its own rebounds. So why am I using this sequence to contrast against the example in Pittsburgh?

Look at what Little has to contend with as he approaches Ehlers’ pass high in the Blue Jackets' zone. He has a man on his back and a second man between him and Byfuglien in front of Columbus’ net.

Still, Little is first on the puck and Winnipeg has possession. The option that I want Little to take is readily available twice over: not only is Ehlers a passing option but Little’s momentum is toward the blueline – he could skate it out himself.

Why retreat? As I suggested above, all of that open ice makes it easier to head all of the way back to your own zone for a change and a clean re-entry. If Little retreats, Winnipeg can keep the puck, get fresh legs onto the ice, and attack the Blue Jackets' zone all over again.

Instead:

With Ehlers yet more wide open than before, Little attempts a button hook into zero space with a man on his back. The puck gets turned over and Columbus is free to head the other way.

It could be that Ehlers was open but silent; it could be that no one on the Jets bench called out that he had a man on his back. And after 33 seconds on the attack, it’s reasonable that Little is simply tired and making mistake due to fatigue.

To be clear, this isn’t even the play that led to the Blue Jackets’ game-winning goal.

That honour goes to this sequence from Little’s very next shift:

The puck is about to be dropped in Columbus’ zone. This is a great spot for Winnipeg to be in and, even better, Little wins the draw.

The problem is he wins it a little too well.

OK, that’s not a problem – Byfuglien just needs to go back and get it. He has plenty of time and a huge head start on Josh Anderson.

Then Anderson steps on the gas…

…So much so that he’s nearly level with Byfuglien when the puck hits the end boards. Even then, no one else is nearby and Byfuglien has good body position:

What percentage of the time do you think Byfuglien wins the puck from this position – 80 per cent? 90 per cent?

He doesn’t win it this time – Anderson completes the comeback:

From here, the Blue Jackets get two shot attempts and recover both of them before an Anderson wrister beats Hellebuyck through traffic.

In eight overtime periods, a lot of things can happen. In the sequences I’ve showed in this introduction, I’m a lot more critical of Little’s decision to force the zone than I am of Byfuglien getting beat because he decided not to hustle for a loose puck.

Why? This is where I circle back to “process.”

To me, the process that went into Columbus scoring is a) less repeatable than Little’s turnover and b) fixed almost instantaneously by a conversation between a player and his coach. There’s no way Byfuglien didn’t feel terrible for getting beat like that – he’s a fiery player who knows his job – so there’s very little in the way of a teachable moment.

In Little’s case, I think Winnipeg needs to adjust its strategy and there’s a little bit more to that.

The data: I don’t want you to take me at a few screenshots and my word that Winnipeg could stand to prioritize possession a little bit more in OT. Here is some data I collected:

Winnipeg had the puck for nearly 20 fewer seconds per game than its opponents. One reason for this is the gaping difference in the number of reverses by each team. Let’s put a pin in that for now and circle back to it in a moment.

Through eight overtime periods, Winnipeg and its opponents have similar numbers in all of:

Number of possessions Number of shifts Shots on goal Zone entry % Faceoffs Meanwhile, Winnipeg trails in all of:

Total time of possession Time per possession Shot Attempts High Danger Scoring Chances Number of zone entries

About zone entries for a moment: the Jets generally gained their opposition’s zone with ease, just as their opponents had no trouble gaining Winnipeg’s zone – there is simply too much space for effective zone entry prevention. Here, the biggest difference comes in the raw counts: Winnipeg attempted just 31 zone entries through eight while their opponents have attempted 41. This difference is not solely attributable to the 9-4 difference in reverses.

Think back to those two plays vs. the Blue Jackets. Little’s turnover in Columbus’ zone necessitates a zone entry by the Blue Jackets. Byfuglien’s turnover in his own zone does not. The extra five zone entries Winnipeg gave up came from turnovers of the first kind – exactly five plays that I tracked as “I wish” reverses.

Plays like this one:

That’s Jacob Trouba getting crunched after trying to gain Columbus’ zone by going 1-on-3. As was the case with Little, there was a whole lot of trouble in front of him and a whole lot of space behind him. It’s this situation that is costing the Jets – in the eight games I studied, I tracked five “I wish” reverses for Winnipeg and zero by their opponents. We’ll come back to that.

Part of Winnipeg’s bad OT record is bad luck Think back to Byfuglien getting chased down by Anderson in Columbus. That was an example of a goal against without a zone entry involved.

One other example is this play vs. Montreal:

With Myers in the box for cross-checking, the puck is in Winnipeg’s zone. Fortunately, Montreal has just misplayed it and Byfuglien is recovering it in the corner.

As two Canadiens try to recover the puck, Byfuglien has a moment to look up. Andrew Copp is pushing up ice and might even be looking at a breakaway if Byfuglien can get him the puck.

This story is a tragedy and you knew that coming in. Shea Weber cuts Byfuglien off at the half wall and a chain of events begins that completes Montreal’s late-game comeback.

Weber pokes the puck forward and gives chase. Byfuglien’s in a hurry to make up for his mistake and he’s not far behind. This is when Toby Enstrom gambles that he can beat both players to the puck.

On the surface of it, Enstrom’s gamble was correct. In this frame he’s a step ahead of Weber to recover the puck.

Turns out Weber has a long reach. He gives Enstrom a shove while swatting the puck to Brendan Gallagher. Enstrom’s caught behind the net and Byfuglien is still chasing. That means Max Pacioretty is all alone in front:

I don’t need to show you how it ends.

I’ll forgive you if you’ve come to this point in the article thinking I’m writing a Byfuglien hit piece. I’m actually using his example to make a very different point about Winnipeg’s overtime record: sometimes, shit happens.

Byfuglien was probably a 90 per cent bet to beat Anderson to the puck in Columbus. He was also good bet to get the puck past Weber vs. Montreal. And in the Pittsburgh game, whose winner I haven’t shown you, Phil Kessel scored on a breakaway as a result of this pass attempt:

Even with everybody in the building aware that Patrik Laine has Myers in his sights, this is still a reasonably high percentage pass and, if it works, Myers has a brilliant scoring chance.

In the end, Laine’s execution was bad and Kessel made an excellent play. Even then, breakaway efficiency is close to one-third – Kessel’s goal came on a very dangerous chance but not one in which he was guaranteed to score. You could run that play 10 more times and get by without a goal against on maybe eight of them.

Of course, that’s not what happened. By the middle of November, the Jets were 0-3 in OT on a series of plays you could run several times without anything bad happening.

They all involve mistakes – I’m in no way arguing Winnipeg should get a free pass – but the point is some portion of the Jets’ terrible overtime record can be attributed to bad luck

The part that isn’t luck: Winnipeg’s record when leading possession time: one shootout loss, one OT loss

Winnipeg’s record when tied in possession time: one shootout win

Winnipeg’s record when trailing in possession time: 0 wins, five OT losses

Let me be clear: I’m not trying to suggest we can solve this by saying “have the puck more.” I am suggesting Winnipeg’s strategy can be tweaked to prioritize decisions that lead to having the puck more. If, in eight overtime periods there were five times where they forced the play forward when the safe play was to reverse, there is a lot of room to improve their time on the puck and their time in the offensive zone as a direct result.

For one example, in Winnipeg’s January 2 loss to Colorado, the Avalanche had 2:58 of possession to Winnipeg’s 1:52. That’s a huge difference – imagine going into a shootout where the other team gets three shooters and you only get two. You would lose a lot of games that way and Colorado tilted possession in their favour by reversing fully five times for fresh looks at Winnipeg’s zone.

Perhaps the best example of how valuable this is came against Tampa Bay on December 9:

That’s Little taking the defensive zone faceoff. This time, he is going to lose the draw.

Tampa Bay comes out of the faceoff with possession but with terrific puck pressure coming its way from Winnipeg. Other than the fact that it began on a faceoff, this play is a mirror image of Little losing the puck in Columbus.

Brayden Point has enough speed to challenge Myers at the top of the zone. He gives it his best shot…

…But Myers stays with him. At this moment, Point has the same decision to make as Little had all of those screenshots ago: turn into traffic or retreat into open ice.

Point reverses to Anton Stralman and the Lightning begin a scripted breakout.

Tampa Bay’s forwards have circled back and crisscrossed in front of Stralman in their own zone. Point, who was at the bottom of your screen is now at the top. Look at all of that space he’s about to skate into.

By the time Point receives Stralman’s pass, he is flying through the neutral zone. Little steps up to challenge him…

But Point’s speed is too much.

Point crosses him over and the rest is overtime loss history:

Playoffs: I was talking about overtime on TSN 1290 the other day and a poster on Twitter was kind enough to mention that there is no 3-on-3 OT in the Stanley Cup playoffs. This is absolutely true and it’s probably great news for the Jets who are a very strong 5-on-5 team.

That said, a few points in either direction would be the difference between top spot in the West and missing out on home ice advantage in the first round. One way Winnipeg could earn more points is to maximize possession time and one way they can do that is to back out of the offensive zone, regroup, and attack open ice with speed.

Do that regularly and we could be talking about home ice advantage throughout the playoffs unless, of course, the Jets find themselves back in Tampa Bay.

TSN 1290 (AUDIO LINKS) https://www.tsn.ca/radio/winnipeg-1290/robinson-confidence-is-high-with-moose-1.970858

Robinson: Confidence is high with Moose

Manitoba Moose forward Buddy Robinson joined host Kevin Olszewski to talk about his career season as he leads the Moose in scoring this season. He also looks ahead to Friday's game against Texas.

NCAA.com http://www.ncaa.com/news/icehockey-men/article/2017-12-22/minnesota-states-cj-suess- making-sure-his-new-name-remembered

Minnesota State's C.J. Suess is making sure his (new) name is remembered for years

By Adam Hermann | NCAA.com

When, not if, C.J. Suess tallies three more points this season, he will join Minnesota State’s top 10 scorers since the school joined Division I in 1996. A fruitful beginning to 2018 could leave him near the Top 5; current NHLer David Backes sits at No. 6 with 119 points, just 13 ahead of Suess’ current 106. His spot among the program’s best players will be a fitting end to a brilliant career from Suess, who’s been a team captain since the beginning of 2016 and the offensive catalyst for just as long.

No matter where he ends up, Suess’ record book entry will read “C.J. Suess, 2014-18”, rather than C.J. Franklin, his name when he began his time with the Mavericks in 2014.

This past summer, Suess changed his last name, a move he said was his way of paying tribute to his mother, Cheryl, a person who has played a significant role in who he is as a person today, as well as his grandmother.

“That side of my family, my mom and my step-dad, they’ve been a big part of my life, and I thought that would be the right thing to do,” Suess said. “So I just went for it.”

He didn’t hold a big party for the decision, or film his mother’s reaction for a social media post. He simply did it — went to court, filled out papers, endured the months-long process, which is only now ending as he waits on his passport change. Yet the unceremonious nature of such a big life change is unsurprising to anyone who knows him.

According to his head coach, Mike Hastings, Suess’ style is one of show, don’t tell.

“He’s one of those guys who lets a lot of his actions speak for him,” Hastings said.

What Hastings has seen in Suess this year is a person even more confident than when last season ended. His numbers are up across the board, his points per game (1.22) above the 1.00 mark for the first time in his career and his shooting percentage (.235) nearly 10 percent better than any of his first three seasons.

He says he isn’t doing anything drastically different, no magic drills he learned in the offseason or revamped skating techniques.

“I think I’m just shooting the puck a lot more, getting to the net more,” Suess said. “I’m just getting in the center of the ice, getting four or five shots each night, and my line mates and teammates do a really good job of getting helping me out. It’s all working out.”

All of which sounds like a player confident in their skin, and in their skills.

And Suess has skills in spades. Hastings loves having Suess on his team because he can roll him out in any scenario — man-up, man-down, even strength, you name it.

“He’s rounded out his game,” Hastings said. “There isn’t a situation where he isn’t at the forefront of my mind to call on. You combine that with his leadership skills, as far as an example-setter, and I think he’s about as well-rounded a player as we have on our roster.”

Earlier this season, after Minnesota State dropped back-to-back games against Bowling Green and Minnesota Duluth, Hastings noticed a shift in Suess’ demeanor. The team had 13 days off before its next game, and Suess put his head down and worked — in the weight room, in the classroom, on the ice — for all 13 days.

When the Mavericks took the ice against Lake Superior State and Alabama Huntsville for four games after the break, they ripped off a four-game win streak, out-scoring their opponents 20-2. Suess recorded six points, including a pair of two-goal games.

“He really set the bar on what we needed to get accomplished over those days off,” Hastings said.

Suess didn’t make a big speech. He set the wheels in motion for what could be a season- shifting win streak just by being himself and doing what he knew what he wanted to do, and what he knew he needed to do.

“I’m not the person who’s a big rah-rah guy,” he said. “I’d rather lead by example.”

He’s a man of few words and many points. And his name is C.J. Suess.