[Article] NHL.com article about Boeser

[alfstonker]

25 minutes ago, appleboy said:

That mind set will hold water on a top team who has a proven record. We are a club that is trying to build from the ground up. If you take the development of your youth seriously then you must give them a spot if they earn it. You would also be impeding your clubs progression.

If Boeser shows well in training camp and pree season , they will make room for him. They have 16 forwards counting Boeser. Someone will get moved.

Jake will be given the same chance.

Glad you added that because as I said the tendency around here is to ignore whether the player has earned it or not.

That is why, if you re-read my post, I said.

"That is not to say there is no limit to that patience, if there is a young stud lighting it up in Utica." 

 

Unfortunately we do not as yet have ANY players "lighting it up in Utica" with the possible exception of Demko.

[Baggins]

13 hours ago, appleboy said:

I am using that as an example of how it should work and not suggesting Jake is ready yet. If Boeser is ready then they need to make room. If Jake makes the grade latter in the year, let's say he replaces Dorsett because of an injury. Once called up he makes a serious impact. Then they must move Dorsett once he is healthy. 

Benning has said that if they earn a spot he WILL make room. The team needs to hold true to their word.

It's not who's ready, it's who is the better option. You could make a case for a multitude of prospects being "ready". But are they the better option? And again, there is depth to consider to cover for injuries. It's not such a cut and dry situation. It's balancing between who is the better option and maintaining depth for injuries.

[appleboy]

10 hours ago, Baggins said:

It's not who's ready, it's who is the better option. You could make a case for a multitude of prospects being "ready". But are they the better option? And again, there is depth to consider to cover for injuries. It's not such a cut and dry situation. It's balancing between who is the better option and maintaining depth for injuries.

Depth is important but if you have a young player who makes your team better then he needs to be here. The idea is to ice the best team posible at this level. You still need to do what is best for the players development. So as long as they are benifiting from the A. There dose come a time where they need to get nhl experience. Goldobin is a good example. He has shown he can produce at the A and now needs to be tested at the next level. If he has had a solid off season and comes in and shows well in preseason do they send him down because they have too many veteran players and they want depth?

[appleboy]

12 hours ago, alfstonker said:

Glad you added that because as I said the tendency around here is to ignore whether the player has earned it or not.

That is why, if you re-read my post, I said.

"That is not to say there is no limit to that patience, if there is a young stud lighting it up in Utica." 

 

Unfortunately we do not as yet have ANY players "lighting it up in Utica" with the possible exception of Demko.

I am not suggesting any young players get a free pass but that goes both ways. Just because you are payed 6 mil a year does not mean you deserve a spot on the team. It should mean that you are held to a higher standard. I want 30 goals for my 6 mIL. 

[Baggins]

8 hours ago, appleboy said:

Depth is important but if you have a young player who makes your team better then he needs to be here. The idea is to ice the best team posible at this level. You still need to do what is best for the players development. So as long as they are benifiting from the A. There dose come a time where they need to get nhl experience. Goldobin is a good example. He has shown he can produce at the A and now needs to be tested at the next level. If he has had a solid off season and comes in and shows well in preseason do they send him down because they have too many veteran players and they want depth?

It's not just a matter of showing well. or as a I said before, being ready. It's being the best option. And depth does play a role in being the best option. To steal a spot from a veteran you need to be head and shoulders the better option to force a move on the GM's part. Being good enough isn't actually good enough.

[alfstonker]

10 hours ago, appleboy said:

I am not suggesting any young players get a free pass but that goes both ways. Just because you are payed 6 mil a year does not mean you deserve a spot on the team. It should mean that you are held to a higher standard. I want 30 goals for my 6 mIL. 

With respect I think you are delusional if you think that's how it works in any pro hockey team or any pro team sport for that matter. It also illustrates imo why fans would be total failures in pro sport management or coaching.

[Baggins]

11 hours ago, appleboy said:

I am not suggesting any young players get a free pass but that goes both ways. Just because you are payed 6 mil a year does not mean you deserve a spot on the team. It should mean that you are held to a higher standard. I want 30 goals for my 6 mIL. 

It's obvious your greatest hope is that Eriksson fails and is put through waivers. Prepare for disappointment. Eriksson, barring injury, will be in the opening line up.

[Nucker 67]

Out of the current prospects trying to make the team this year (Boeser, Virtanen, Goldobin, Molino and Juolevi), Boeser has the best chance IMO. He stepped in briefly for 9 games last year and produced right away, didn't look out of place. Goldobin has a good chance too, as he can also provide some offence. I think Juolevi plays a season in Europe (coached/mentored by Salo), and Virtanen becomes a 1st call-up from Utica. 

[appleboy]

On ‎8‎/‎8‎/‎2017 at 3:32 AM, alfstonker said:

With respect I think you are delusional if you think that's how it works in any pro hockey team or any pro team sport for that matter. It also illustrates imo why fans would be total failures in pro sport management or coaching.

Well, WD gave preference to veterans and look how that worked out.

I think that most good coaches will play their best players no matter what their contract circumstance is or how old they are. If you think that a team in this league is going to win with a bunch of older players then you are the one who is delusional. This is a young mans game.

[alfstonker]

9 hours ago, appleboy said:

Well, WD gave preference to veterans and look how that worked out.

I think that most good coaches will play their best players no matter what their contract circumstance is or how old they are. If you think that a team in this league is going to win with a bunch of older players then you are the one who is delusional. This is a young mans game.

It didn't work out because he had the lowest scoring team in the league which also happened to be one of the 3 most injury hit teams in the league.

 

He gave places (not preference) to 3 AHL players because that is all he had and they knew how to work and protect a young injury riddled team from completely falling apart.

 

That is why they actually looked good most nights without having the luck or the ability to put up the points their play deserved.

 

WD was given youngsters to help him in his 2nd year 2 of whom were patently unready, he was given a slow player Prust who was injured after a third of the season and was never replaced,  he was given Loui who went from goal scorer to zero - I could go on but the fact you don't realise or appreciate any of that makes it hardly worthwhile.

 

[appleboy]

On 8/12/2017 at 3:17 AM, alfstonker said:

It didn't work out because he had the lowest scoring team in the league which also happened to be one of the 3 most injury hit teams in the league.

 

He gave places (not preference) to 3 AHL players because that is all he had and they knew how to work and protect a young injury riddled team from completely falling apart.

 

That is why they actually looked good most nights without having the luck or the ability to put up the points their play deserved.

 

WD was given youngsters to help him in his 2nd year 2 of whom were patently unready, he was given a slow player Prust who was injured after a third of the season and was never replaced,  he was given Loui who went from goal scorer to zero - I could go on but the fact you don't realise or appreciate any of that makes it hardly worthwhile.

 

The fact that you refuse to acknowledge that we may have a couple of young players who will earn spots because that are just better then some of our vets is baffling. 

[alfstonker]

2 hours ago, appleboy said:

The fact that you refuse to acknowledge that we may have a couple of young players who will earn spots because that are just better then some of our vets is baffling. 

This is in fact what I said.

"Glad you added that because as I said the tendency around here is to ignore whether the player has earned it or not.

That is why, if you re-read my post, I said.

"That is not to say there is no limit to that patience, if there is a young stud lighting it up in Utica." 

 

Unfortunately we do not as yet have ANY players "lighting it up in Utica" with the possible exception of Demko."

 

You on the other hand implied we would consign a vet to the press box or worse still risk him on waivers based on "If Boeser shows well in training camp and pre season"

 

That is not really the same thing and I am saying that not neccessarily how a GM/coach might look at it.

 

[IBatch]

2 hours ago, appleboy said:

The fact that you refuse to acknowledge that we may have a couple of young players who will earn spots because that are just better then some of our vets is baffling. 

At this point with the exception of Boeser, I'm not too sure who these young guys we have that are better than the vets are.  Please enlighten.  I'm all for adding youth, but not at the expense of doing what we did to Virtanen the last time management relented to pressure to play the young guys before they earned it, a lesson Benning has obviously learned by signing five guys to tradable contracts this summer.

 

Goldobin might be ready, we will see at training camp.  Vey was also a PPG AHler and we all know how that worked out.

[appleboy]

10 hours ago, alfstonker said:

This is in fact what I said.

"Glad you added that because as I said the tendency around here is to ignore whether the player has earned it or not.

That is why, if you re-read my post, I said.

"That is not to say there is no limit to that patience, if there is a young stud lighting it up in Utica." 

 

Unfortunately we do not as yet have ANY players "lighting it up in Utica" with the possible exception of Demko."

 

You on the other hand implied we would consign a vet to the press box or worse still risk him on waivers based on "If Boeser shows well in training camp and pre season"

 

That is not really the same thing and I am saying that not neccessarily how a GM/coach might look at it.

 

Boeser scored 6 points in 9 games and 4 of those were goals. If he comes to camp and has showed progress and then plays well in pre season your suggesting that he should go to Utica? Goldobin is another one who has the skill set that this club is lacking. If he shows in pre season that he can add a touch of offense that we really lack then he should be here. Jake may need some more time in the A but eventually he needs to get another shot. 

It is not me saying this it is Jim Benning. He said that they want competition at camp and if a young player earns a spot then he will make room for him. Whether that means a trade or just waiving someone. Now, I have no reason to not take him at his word.

If you count Jake and Goldobin we will have 18 players vying for 14 spots max. Three can be waved.

Do you think that Rodin , Boucher , Megna or Chaput are guaranteed spots over Boeser , Goldobin and Jake? I find that hard to believe.

Defense is no different as we have 8 vets with one way deals. If they keep them all then we only have 13 forward spots. Lets say McEneny who was Greens go to guy by the end of the year works hard all summer. His big weakness has been conditioning. If he comes to camp in the right shape he could be a big surprise. Do you send him down just because we have too many one way deals.

What is the point of creating competition if you have no intention of rewarding those who excel at camp and pre season?

No young player should be gifted a spot but neither should the Megna's of the world. I am just saying that it is not fair to incubate these kids in the A if they are better then what you have at the NHL.

[alfstonker]

11 hours ago, appleboy said:

Boeser scored 6 points in 9 games and 4 of those were goals. If he comes to camp and has showed progress and then plays well in pre season your suggesting that he should go to Utica? Goldobin is another one who has the skill set that this club is lacking. If he shows in pre season that he can add a touch of offense that we really lack then he should be here. Jake may need some more time in the A but eventually he needs to get another shot. 

It is not me saying this it is Jim Benning. He said that they want competition at camp and if a young player earns a spot then he will make room for him. Whether that means a trade or just waiving someone. Now, I have no reason to not take him at his word.

If you count Jake and Goldobin we will have 18 players vying for 14 spots max. Three can be waved.

Do you think that Rodin , Boucher , Megna or Chaput are guaranteed spots over Boeser , Goldobin and Jake? I find that hard to believe.

Defense is no different as we have 8 vets with one way deals. If they keep them all then we only have 13 forward spots. Lets say McEneny who was Greens go to guy by the end of the year works hard all summer. His big weakness has been conditioning. If he comes to camp in the right shape he could be a big surprise. Do you send him down just because we have too many one way deals.

What is the point of creating competition if you have no intention of rewarding those who excel at camp and pre season?

No young player should be gifted a spot but neither should the Megna's of the world. I am just saying that it is not fair to incubate these kids in the A if they are better then what you have at the NHL.

You're mixing things up it seems.

 

Firstly, for 9/10ths of the season WD/JB didn't have young prospects playing well enough to displace Megna Chaput or Skille so why bring Megna into it? There was no "incubation of kids" All the kids who could play worth a damn were playing and as I have already pointed out if it had not been for how tight and vigorous the 3 AHLers had played these kids would have seen their confidence and ability go down the plughole. That however needs a degree of understanding of the game which with respect is lacking around here.

 

Stop trying to pick the team in your head in order to make straw man arguments. The team will sort itself out and players who are not waiver restricted will, as I say, influence team selection as it would have done last year but for horrendous injury.

 

Your thinking imo is too much on the idealistic and not enough on the realistic. This is a multi million $ business and that tends to govern the bottom line irrespective of vague "promises" made by the GM to keep the fans on side.

[appleboy]

48 minutes ago, alfstonker said:

 You're mixing things up it seems.

 

Firstly, for 9/10ths of the season WD/JB didn't have young prospects playing well enough to displace Megna Chaput or Skille so why bring Megna into it? There was no "incubation of kids" All the kids who could play worth a damn were playing and as I have already pointed out if it had not been for how tight and vigorous the 3 AHLers had played these kids would have seen their confidence and ability go down the plughole. That however needs a degree of understanding of the game which with respect is lacking around here.

 

Stop trying to pick the team in your head in order to make straw man arguments. The team will sort itself out and players who are not waiver restricted will, as I say, influence team selection as it would have done last year but for horrendous injury.

 

Your thinking imo is too much on the idealistic and not enough on the realistic. This is a multi million $ business and that tends to govern the bottom line irrespective of vague "promises" made by the GM to keep the fans on side.

This discussion is not about last year or the year before . It is about this year and the statement that Benning and his coach has made. You say that contracts and money will play a huge role in the decisions of who makes this years club. I understand that there is certain players who will make the team no matter how well they play but we have a few prospects who are getting close and  may very well win a spot or they may not. No one is trying to pick the team that is all up to the players at camp and pre season. I have made a simple statement that players young and old will need to be ready to earn a spot and I stand by it. 

Yes it is a multi million $ business and season ticket holders and fans will expect management to ice the best team no matter what. The NHL game has turned into a game where speed and skill is what it takes to excel. It has become a game where younger players have become a big part of successful teams.

 

So you say the club is set based on NHL contracts. So why bother having a competitive training camp? 

[Neko]

I'm having a really hard time beileving that Rodin will win the spot over Boeser.

[alfstonker]

2 hours ago, appleboy said:

This discussion is not about last year or the year before . It is about this year and the statement that Benning and his coach has made. You say that contracts and money will play a huge role in the decisions of who makes this years club. I understand that there is certain players who will make the team no matter how well they play but we have a few prospects who are getting close and  may very well win a spot or they may not. No one is trying to pick the team that is all up to the players at camp and pre season. I have made a simple statement that players young and old will need to be ready to earn a spot and I stand by it. 

Yes it is a multi million $ business and season ticket holders and fans will expect management to ice the best team no matter what. The NHL game has turned into a game where speed and skill is what it takes to excel. It has become a game where younger players have become a big part of successful teams.

 

So you say the club is set based on NHL contracts. So why bother having a competitive training camp? 

Three things here. 

Firstly, it was you who mentioned Megna (neither should the Megnas of this world) I assume that was an opinion based on Megna last season?

 

Secondly, You seem to be under the impression that the pre-season camp actually picks the team. It really doesn't - most coaches are aware that the vets don't take these games too seriously and the games themselves are not always an indication of the home OR the road team, so why would coaches read too much into them. Only the fans do that. That is why I referred explicitly to prospects "lighting it up in the AHL" (because that is where it counts)

 

Thirdly I appreciate you and fans in general have opinions on who is playing well enough to be included for the opening game but that is ONLY YOUR OPINION. With respect you and I have no standing in the game so just because a prospect appears to you or I to be playing well doesn't make it a fact with regard to the opinion of those who matter in the Club.

 

There are a number of benefits to a "competitive" training camp. 

It allows the prospects to mix with the vets/first team roster. It allows the fans to hallucinate over their favourite prospects. It allows the coach and management to see how much work the prospects have actually put in during the summer. Lastly by mixing prospects with vets it allows coaches to assess their hockey IQ and ability to think the game at a faster pace.

[appleboy]

5 minutes ago, alfstonker said:

Three things here. 

Firstly, it was you who mentioned Megna (neither should the Megnas of this world) I assume that was an opinion based on Megna last season?

 

Secondly, You seem to be under the impression that the pre-season camp actually picks the team. It really doesn't - most coaches are aware that the vets don't take these games too seriously and the games themselves are not always an indication of the home OR the road team, so why would coaches read too much into them. Only the fans do that. That is why I referred explicitly to prospects "lighting it up in the AHL" (because that is where it counts)

 

Thirdly I appreciate you and fans in general have opinions on who is playing well enough to be included for the opening game but that is ONLY YOUR OPINION. With respect you and I have no standing in the game so just because a prospect appears to you or I to be playing well doesn't make it a fact with regard to the opinion of those who matter in the Club.

 

There are a number of benefits to a "competitive" training camp. 

It allows the prospects to mix with the vets/first team roster. It allows the fans to hallucinate over their favourite prospects. It allows the coach and management to see how much work the prospects have actually put in during the summer. Lastly by mixing prospects with vets it allows coaches to assess their hockey IQ and ability to think the game at a faster pace.

Our difference of opinion comes down to the fact that you don't think we have any prospects who are ready to push for a spot. I disagree and this spring will solve our discussion. Every year there are teams all over the league who have kids that earn a spot based on their play in pre season. Not sure why we should be any difference. Maybe I have a better opinion of our prospects then you do. I will be very surprised if Beoser is not on the club and the only way he is not will be if he craps the bed in pre season!   

 

Lets agree to take this up once the year starts. Then we will see if any of our kids pushed their way on or not. Juolevi is not such a long shot either.