2019-20 Utica Comets Thread

[SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME]

Some lolz c/o Reddit:

 

[dpn1]

Are there any computer aces out there that follow the Comets closely that could do a GDT for the Comets?  Just a thought as it might be nice to even just do a post in this thread on their Comets game day.

[TomatoPieFan]

 

[Nuxfanabroad]

15 hours ago, GoldenAlien said:

So much depth yet sitting at No. 21 in the NHL with $0 in projected cap space.  Missed the playoffs 10 seasons out of 11 from 2005 to 2016, but has an incredibly mediocre prospect pool — ranked No. 21 by Pronman, No. 21 by Sporting News, and No. 21 by EP Rinkside.  (Canucks’ prospects were ranked No. 5, No. 8, and No. 4 by the same organizations). Does not seem like a model organization to follow, unless the height of the Canucks’ aspirations is to win the Calder Cup. 

Don't think this can be improved upon, as answers go :^)

[UticaHockey]

15 hours ago, GoldenAlien said:

So much depth yet sitting at No. 21 in the NHL with $0 in projected cap space.  Missed the playoffs 10 seasons out of 11 from 2005 to 2016, but has an incredibly mediocre prospect pool — ranked No. 21 by Pronman, No. 21 by Sporting News, and No. 21 by EP Rinkside.  (Canucks’ prospects were ranked No. 5, No. 8, and No. 4 by the same organizations). Does not seem like a model organization to follow, unless the height of the Canucks’ aspirations is to win the Calder Cup. 

How is the lack of depth at center right now in the AHL have anything to do with the prospect ranking and cap space?  The point I was making and "Horvat is a Boss" was commenting on had to do with the fact that JB knowingly started the season with just one center in the AHL on a NHL contract.  Is this a good strategy knowing the injury issues that this organization has experienced over the past several seasons?  With Graovac called up already who is the next in line to play in the middle for the Canucks if another center-man gets injured?  How many other NHL teams started the season with just a single natural center under contract on their AHL team available for call up?

 

This has nothing to do with prospect rankings and everything to do with having the proper positional depth in the AHL to get through an 82 game schedule when the inevitable injuries occur.  It is well known that the Canucks prospects at the center position are a year or two away in the NCAA, Europe or juniors so for this season (and the past few seasons) to have enough depth now JB has to supplement with free agent signings over the summer.  This year the only signing was Graovac which is just not an adequate amount of depth. 

 

5 hours ago, Horvat is a Boss said:

 

You're talking about everything besides the point. Can you show me where in my post I was talking about cap space, prospect pools or the Playoffs? It looks like you saw the word Toronto and nothing else. 

 

I'm talking about signing 1-2 more players for Utica. Toronto signed 5 or so players specifically for the AHL this past summer. That's all I'm comparing. 

Agree 100%

[GoldenAlien]

@UticaHockey@Horvat is a Boss I won't quote your posts to save space on my (admittedly) lengthy post, but curious minds can scroll or go back a page.

 

The point, and why Toronto's cap space, prospects pool and NHL performance matter, is that the sole purpose of an NHL-owned AHL team is to make the NHL team better.  Whether that be providing depth for call ups, or improving its prospect pool, or whatever else, end of the day the only result that matters is that the farm system led to a better NHL team.  For example, if the Marlies could accelerate or improve the development of its defensemen so the Leafs can fill its back end with young, quality talent, that would be very helpful to the team's performance.  If the Marlies could elevate the potential of its forwards, perhaps the Leafs wouldn't need to sign Tavares (or Marleau then lose a first rounder), which would do wonders for its cap.  Or if they could turn Timashov into Arvidsson, they could've easily traded Nylander before they ever ran into contract issues and not miss a beat.  If signing extra AHL vets would help them accomplish those things, then we would see the results on the big team.  Instead, we see a team with all the money and resources in the world, sitting outside of a playoff spot with a prospect pool ranked lower than the Stanley Cup champs'.  If these vet signings didn't elevate the Leafs' prospects pool or their playoff chances, then what are they for?  What does it matter if the Marlies go 76-0 if the Leafs miss the playoffs?  Conversely, what does it matter if the Comets went 0-76 if the Canucks win the Cup?  The only reason there are the Utica Comets right now and not the Peoria Rivermen is because the Canucks believed that getting its own team would up its competitiveness at the NHL level, not because the Aquilinis were itching to expand their business to upstate New York.

 

As to whether an extra Graovac would help the Canucks, for all intents and purposes, it would not.  If the Canucks lost three of its starting centres for any extended period of time, the season is toast.  What, we're going to roll into the playoffs with a lineup of Pettersson - Gaudette - Graovac - Graovac?  It wouldn't matter if we stashed 15 extra centres in the AHL.  There aren't players who can be had on a $1 million contract and pass through waivers, but be just as good as Sutter or Beagle, let alone Horvat or EP40.  Look at the Marlies' centres -- Adam Brooks, Tyler Gaudet and Pierre Engvall.  Which one can replace Sutter/ Beagle with no noticeable drop in performance?  The Canucks started the season with EP40 and Horvat as locks for 1C and 2C, Sutter and Gaudette competing for 3C, and Beagle as 4C.  Schaller have played all three forward positions in the NHL and can fill in at centre.  Is he as good as Beagle?  No.  Would he be as good as Graovac?  Sure.  Is there a difference in going with Gaudette - Graovac- Schaller as the bottom 3 centres vs Gaudette - Graovac - Graovac 2.0?  I highly doubt it.  The Canucks didn't sign any more centres because it makes little sense to waste contracts on players who make no tangible impact on the team's playoff chances.

 

Speaking of contracts, every team only gets 50 and the Canucks are at 47.  KHL's regular season ends on Feb. 27, 2020 and Tryamkin's team currently sits outside of a playoff spot.  Lockwood is a senior at Michigan and must be signed if the Canucks want to keep him.  Rathbone is in his D+3 and putting up a good run, Madden is in his D+2 and may also want to turn pro.  That's four possible spring signings, and doesn't include undrafted college or CHL free agents.  Is an extra Graovac going to do more for the Canucks in the long run, than being able to sign all of its prospects, or being able to take a chance on another Rafferty or MacEwen?

 

Maybe just as pertinent is that AHL centres don't typically boost the long term potential of their wingers.  Could Lind have gotten a few more points last year if he played with an AHL all-star?  Sure.  Did his play warrant being on the first line with the team's best centre?  No.  Would his main weaknesses then -- strength and speed -- be improved by playing with a better centre?  Unlikely, though a better centre could mask some of his problems.  But he's better this year, regardless of who he plays with, because he put in the work over the summer and is more mentally prepared for the game.  The Canucks are in the business of developing NHL players, not AHL scorers.  Boucher is a far better AHL player than Motte ever was.  Means nothing to the Canucks.  Not to mention, Lind, Gadjovich and Jasek are not making the NHL with EP40 as their centre.  They're probably going to get called up with Beagle as their centre.  If they can't perform in the AHL without a star centre, then how will they ever make it against the best in the world?

 

In general, the hand-wringing over Utica's weekly performance is overblown.  Prospects development isn't a month-to-month process.  Lind's long term potential is no different in November than October, even though his scoring rate changed.  The emphasis is on rounding out their skillsets, not padding their stats.  So the Comets lost some games.  As long as it has good training and coaching staff and plays meaningful games down the stretch -- both of which have been true since its inception -- then it's doing its job.  It doesn't win games for the sake of winning games, it wins games only if it ultimately leads to a better prospect pool for the Canucks.  Remember all that uproar about the Gagner loan?  Whose career did he make at the Marlies?  Shouldn't Jeremy Bracco be Alex DeBrincat by now considering all the great centres he played with?   

 

So really, the point is that in the bigger picture, the Canucks didn't do what the Leafs did because what the Leafs are doing have shown no positive impact on their franchise.  The point is signings are supposed to deliver results.  And if the result is an overpaid, underperforming team with a subpar prospect pool, then perhaps the Canucks were right to not emulate those moves.

Edited November 20, 2019 by GoldenAlien

[UticaHockey]

11 hours ago, GoldenAlien said:

@UticaHockey@Horvat is a Boss I won't quote your posts to save space on my (admittedly) lengthy post, but curious minds can scroll or go back a page.

 

The point, and why Toronto's cap space, prospects pool and NHL performance matter, is that the sole purpose of an NHL-owned AHL team is to make the NHL team better.  Whether that be providing depth for call ups, or improving its prospect pool, or whatever else, end of the day the only result that matters is that the farm system led to a better NHL team.  For example, if the Marlies could accelerate or improve the development of its defensemen so the Leafs can fill its back end with young, quality talent, that would be very helpful to the team's performance.  If the Marlies could elevate the potential of its forwards, perhaps the Leafs wouldn't need to sign Tavares (or Marleau then lose a first rounder), which would do wonders for its cap.  Or if they could turn Timashov into Arvidsson, they could've easily traded Nylander before they ever ran into contract issues and not miss a beat.  If signing extra AHL vets would help them accomplish those things, then we would see the results on the big team.  Instead, we see a team with all the money and resources in the world, sitting outside of a playoff spot with a prospect pool ranked lower than the Stanley Cup champs'.  If these vet signings didn't elevate the Leafs' prospects pool or their playoff chances, then what are they for?  What does it matter if the Marlies go 76-0 if the Leafs miss the playoffs?  Conversely, what does it matter if the Comets went 0-76 if the Canucks win the Cup?  The only reason there are the Utica Comets right now and not the Peoria Rivermen is because the Canucks believed that getting its own team would up its competitiveness at the NHL level, not because the Aquilinis were itching to expand their business to upstate New York.

 

As to whether an extra Graovac would help the Canucks, for all intents and purposes, it would not.  If the Canucks lost three of its starting centres for any extended period of time, the season is toast.  What, we're going to roll into the playoffs with a lineup of Pettersson - Gaudette - Graovac - Graovac?  It wouldn't matter if we stashed 15 extra centres in the AHL.  There aren't players who can be had on a $1 million contract and pass through waivers, but be just as good as Sutter or Beagle, let alone Horvat or EP40.  Look at the Marlies' centres -- Adam Brooks, Tyler Gaudet and Pierre Engvall.  Which one can replace Sutter/ Beagle with no noticeable drop in performance?  The Canucks started the season with EP40 and Horvat as locks for 1C and 2C, Sutter and Gaudette competing for 3C, and Beagle as 4C.  Schaller have played all three forward positions in the NHL and can fill in at centre.  Is he as good as Beagle?  No.  Would he be as good as Graovac?  Sure.  Is there a difference in going with Gaudette - Graovac- Schaller as the bottom 3 centres vs Gaudette - Graovac - Graovac 2.0?  I highly doubt it.  The Canucks didn't sign any more centres because it makes little sense to waste contracts on players who make no tangible impact on the team's playoff chances.

 

Speaking of contracts, every team only gets 50 and the Canucks are at 47.  KHL's regular season ends on Feb. 27, 2020 and Tryamkin's team currently sits outside of a playoff spot.  Lockwood is a senior at Michigan and must be signed if the Canucks want to keep him.  Rathbone is in his D+3 and putting up a good run, Madden is in his D+2 and may also want to turn pro.  That's four possible spring signings, and doesn't include undrafted college or CHL free agents.  Is an extra Graovac going to do more for the Canucks in the long run, than being able to sign all of its prospects, or being able to take a chance on another Rafferty or MacEwen?

 

Maybe just as pertinent is that AHL centres don't typically boost the long term potential of their wingers.  Could Lind have gotten a few more points last year if he played with an AHL all-star?  Sure.  Did his play warrant being on the first line with the team's best centre?  No.  Would his main weaknesses then -- strength and speed -- be improved by playing with a better centre?  Unlikely, though a better centre could mask some of his problems.  But he's better this year, regardless of who he plays with, because he put in the work over the summer and is more mentally prepared for the game.  The Canucks are in the business of developing NHL players, not AHL scorers.  Boucher is a far better AHL player than Motte ever was.  Means nothing to the Canucks.  Not to mention, Lind, Gadjovich and Jasek are not making the NHL with EP40 as their centre.  They're probably going to get called up with Beagle as their centre.  If they can't perform in the AHL without a star centre, then how will they ever make it against the best in the world?

 

In general, the hand-wringing over Utica's weekly performance is overblown.  Prospects development isn't a month-to-month process.  Lind's long term potential is no different in November than October, even though his scoring rate changed.  The emphasis is on rounding out their skillsets, not padding their stats.  So the Comets lost some games.  As long as it has good training and coaching staff and plays meaningful games down the stretch -- both of which have been true since its inception -- then it's doing its job.  It doesn't win games for the sake of winning games, it wins games only if it ultimately leads to a better prospect pool for the Canucks.  Remember all that uproar about the Gagner loan?  Whose career did he make at the Marlies?  Shouldn't Jeremy Bracco be Alex DeBrincat by now considering all the great centres he played with?   

 

So really, the point is that in the bigger picture, the Canucks didn't do what the Leafs did because what the Leafs are doing have shown no positive impact on their franchise.  The point is signings are supposed to deliver results.  And if the result is an overpaid, underperforming team with a subpar prospect pool, then perhaps the Canucks were right to not emulate those moves.

This looks like a lot of words trying to rationalize why a NHL team would enter a season with only one available center call up.

[dpn1]

1 hour ago, UticaHockey said:

This looks like a lot of words trying to rationalize why a NHL team would enter a season with only one available center call up.

UticaHockey, you seem to know a lot about the Comets.  Would you consider doing a game day post on this tread for the comets?  I think you would be the perfect guy to do it.  I hope you will consider it. 

Edited November 20, 2019 by dpn1

[WeneedLumme]

1 hour ago, UticaHockey said:

This looks like a lot of words trying to rationalize why a NHL team would enter a season with only one available center call up.

I agree that it is a lot of words, but you might try reading it, as it makes a lot of sense. Is there something in that post that you disagree with? If so, why don't you point out the errors in his facts or logic?

 

And here's a question for you: when you have so much NHL centre depth that you start the year with 2 centres playing on the wing, do you still need as much AHL centre depth on your farm team?

[UticaHockey]

14 minutes ago, dpn1 said:

UticaHockey, you seem to know a lot about the Comets.  Would you consider doing a game day post on this tread for the comets?  I think you would be the perfect guy to do it.  I hope you will consider it. 

Thanks but I wouldn't be a good candidate for running a game day thread because I am at all of the Comets home games and wouldn't have time to post to the thread.  I watch all of the away games on AHL TV but usually just poke my head in here a few times during the games but mainly after the game is over.

[UticaHockey]

17 minutes ago, WeneedLumme said:

I agree that it is a lot of words, but you might try reading it, as it makes a lot of sense. Is there something in that post that you disagree with? If so, why don't you point out the errors in his facts or logic?

 

And here's a question for you: when you have so much NHL centre depth that you start the year with 2 centres playing on the wing, do you still need as much AHL centre depth on your farm team?

Over an entire 82 game schedule yes I do believe that one center in the AHL on a NHL contract is not sufficient depth.  Just looking at the injury history of this organization over the past few years should answer that question alone.  Here are the basic facts regarding depth at that position and it is only mid-November.

 

Tyler Graovac was the only true center assigned to Utica at the start of the season available for call up and he was injured in the Comets season opener which resulted in him missing the next 4 weeks before returning on November 2.  The Canucks with so much NHL center depth that they have two centers playing wing suddenly find themselves eleven days later not only needing to call up their only center in the AHL but immediately inserting him into the line up.  Again I ask is it a good idea to start a season with only one true center under contract in the AHL available for call up?

 

I did read all of the "a lot of words" that GoldenAlien posted and it just appeared to me as rationalization for the lack of center depth and more obsession that some Canucks fans have with the Leafs.  

[dpn1]

Well, the Comets play the Devil's farm team tonight 4 pm PST.  With Cory Schneider clearing waivers the Comets may be facing him in tonight's game.  Just an interesting point about the game today.  Krock is the radio station that covers the Utica Comets if you want to listen to the game or watch on AHLTV.  Go Comets and right the ship. 

[WeneedLumme]

2 hours ago, UticaHockey said:

Over an entire 82 game schedule yes I do believe that one center in the AHL on a NHL contract is not sufficient depth.  Just looking at the injury history of this organization over the past few years should answer that question alone.  Here are the basic facts regarding depth at that position and it is only mid-November.

 

Tyler Graovac was the only true center assigned to Utica at the start of the season available for call up and he was injured in the Comets season opener which resulted in him missing the next 4 weeks before returning on November 2.  The Canucks with so much NHL center depth that they have two centers playing wing suddenly find themselves eleven days later not only needing to call up their only center in the AHL but immediately inserting him into the line up.  Again I ask is it a good idea to start a season with only one true center under contract in the AHL available for call up?

 

I did read all of the "a lot of words" that GoldenAlien posted and it just appeared to me as rationalization for the lack of center depth and more obsession that some Canucks fans have with the Leafs.  

Well, if it is just rationalization, then you should have no problem dismantling it with facts and logic. Go for it.

[Noble 6]

@GoldenAlien Same thing, just saving space. 

 

You're taking the point that @UticaHockey and I were making and blowing it way out of proportion. There's no way at all that signing someone like Groavac should be related to players like Tavares or Arvidsson in any way. The prospects that play in the AHL are guys who will more than likely be middle/bottom 6 contributors, not top line producers. 

 

With regards to depth, nobody is saying that a Groavac type player should be able to replace 100% of Sutter's on ice abilities. We're saying that if our centers get injured, we have someone who can play center available. Obviously the AHL player wouldn't be as good as the NHL player. That doesn't mean he's useless. It's about having the depth to be able to have roster flexibility in times of need, which we don't have at center and haven't had for the last couple of years. You know what's worse than playing an AHL center at center in the NHL? Playing a winger there, or an AHL winger, or a young player who isn't ready for it, etc. This is the overwhelming benefit that center depth provides, everything else is relatively insignificant compared to this. 

 

If the team wanted to address the lack of centers in the summer, they didn't have to sign Bailey or Perron and could have signed two centers instead. There you go, same number of contracts, but way better depth at that position. We already have an overflow of wingers anyway and it's much easier to play someone like Groavac on the wing than it is to play someone like Bailey at center. Again, flexibility. 

 

The Leafs signing all those players for the AHL goes a long way in building a winning environment and providing the luxury of being able to put their prospects in positions to succeed. Bracco lead the AHL in scoring last year and Sandin has been putting up incredible numbers because they are such a strong team. When the Comets started strong, Boucher and Lind were tearing it up and Lind was scoring at a pretty good rate. Boucher then missed some games and Lind's production plummeted. I get what you're saying about development vs. production, but the two aren't mutually exclusive. Why do you think that good AHL producers are far more likely to find any measure of success in the NHL than bad AHL producers? We're not trying to develop Lind into a Motte level player are we? And again, this isn't even the discussion that was being had. This is completely unrelated to having enough depth for callups in case of an injury. 

 

You took a simple point and blew it up way bigger than it was supposed to be by trying to justify a situation which could be fixed very easily. Prospect pools and 1st line players are unrelated to the topic being discussed. 

 

[Gawdzukes]

19 hours ago, GoldenAlien said:

@UticaHockey@Horvat is a Boss I won't quote your posts to save space on my (admittedly) lengthy post, but curious minds can scroll or go back a page.

 

....

 

Quote

So really, the point is that in the bigger picture, the Canucks didn't do what the Leafs did because what the Leafs are doing have shown no positive impact on their franchise.  The point is signings are supposed to deliver results.  And if the result is an overpaid, underperforming team with a subpar prospect pool, then perhaps the Canucks were right to not emulate those moves.

Really well thought out post. I feel for UticaHockey and the like but I have to agree with most of the points made here. Another factor to consider is that Toronto's cap situation and the resulting borderline depth is well known. As a result of this they were forced to carry a bunch of capable call ups due to a complete unknown with the Leafs depth. In complete contrast the Canucks had a plethora of depth and even had to send down players who would have easily played on the Leafs opening day roster.

 

Could an extra center have been signed. Possibly, but the development of our prospects and contract spots are far more important to the Canucks.

Edited November 20, 2019 by Gawdzukes

[GoldenAlien]

@Horvat is a Boss Prospects pools are relevant because the only reasons why signings should be made are because one, it improves the team's immediate playoff prospects, or two, it improves the team's future by elevating the potential of its prospects pool.  Simply put, signing another Graovac would do neither.  The Canucks do not currently have young players at centre to rush into a NHL spot, so that's a moot point.  If Sutter, Beagle, and one of Horvat/ EP40 get injured, then a bottom 3 of Gaudette - Graovac - Graovac 2.0 is not going to get the Canucks any further than Gaudette - Graovac - Schaller.  The fact that Schaller is better on the wing doesn't matter.  He won't be as good as Beagle but compared to Graovac, he's no worse.  

 

And Arvidsson played 70 games in the AHL as a 21 year old and another 17 games the season after.  There are first liners developed in the AHL, so if getting more centres increases the long term potential of wingers, we should see these kind of players coming out of the Marlies, but we don't.  Bracco is exactly my point.  Boucher would probably be leading the AHL in scoring too if he hadn't been injured.  We don't want more Boucher.  We rather have more Motte.  Will Lind become Motte?  Maybe.  That won't be determined by whether he plays with Hamilton or Graovac.  Motte was a star in college; most NHL bottom sixers were scorers at lower levels.  How much Lind scores in the AHL won't matter as much as how well his skillset fits in the NHL.   But the bigger point is if he can't be a driver himself in the AHL, then he won't ever make it to the NHL.  This is a league where Chris Terry and Nathan Walker are top scorers.  Where Max Legace is a legitimately good goalie.  If a prospect can't score on Legace unless they get an all-star centre, how will they score against anyone in the NHL?  At the end of the day, which NHL prospect made it further in their career because of an AHL centre?

 

Small side point, but Perron was a trade -- the Canucks gave Pyatt and a 6th to SJ for him and a 7th.  There may not have been a centre available for that trade.

 

9 hours ago, UticaHockey said:

I did read all of the "a lot of words" that GoldenAlien posted and it just appeared to me as rationalization for the lack of center depth and more obsession that some Canucks fans have with the Leafs.  

I don't need to rationalize because the decisions that were made were rational.  Your fixation on extra centres, on the other hand, is not.  If anyone has an obsession, it is not I.  I included Toronto because the original point was why the Canucks didn't do what the Leafs did.  It would be strange to respond with reasons why the Canucks didn't do what Carolina did, no? 

 

However, I'll summarize in fewer words.  Please just respond to the following:

1. Signing an extra AHL centre will not improve the Canucks' playoff chances.  If you have evidence to the contrary, please explain and be specific -- not a vague, wouldn't it be better to have more centres?

2. Signing an extra AHL centre will not improve the long term potential of the Canucks' prospects pool.  Gadjovich will not turn into Tom Wilson because he played with Graovac instead of Hamilton.  If you have evidence to the contrary, please explain and be specific.

 

Depth in itself is not desirable.  Depth that helps you win is desirable.  The Canucks would be deeper with an extra five Graovacs, but it would not be more likely to win the Cup.  Therefore, this is not useful depth.  The NHL isn't some bloated communist regime, people aren't pushing around paper just to create some work for others.  Why does it matter if the Canucks did or did not sign someone who ultimately makes no difference to the team's current or future playoff prospects?

Edited November 21, 2019 by GoldenAlien

[Nuxfanabroad]

Tied at 4, Comets & Devs..goin' to OT

[Captain Canuck #12]

1 hour ago, Nuxfanabroad said:

Tied at 4, Comets & Devs..goin' to OT

So what happened...we're still in suspense! 

[Noble 6]

3 hours ago, GoldenAlien said:

@Horvat is a Boss Prospects pools are relevant because the only reasons why signings should be made are because one, it improves the team's immediate playoff prospects, or two, it improves the team's future by elevating the potential of its prospects pool.  Simply put, signing another Graovac would do neither.  The Canucks do not currently have young players at centre to rush into a NHL spot, so that's a moot point.  If Sutter, Beagle, and one of Horvat/ EP40 get injured, then a bottom 3 of Gaudette - Graovac - Graovac 2.0 is not going to get the Canucks any further than Gaudette - Graovac - Schaller.  The fact that Schaller is better on the wing doesn't matter.  He won't be as good as Beagle but compared to Graovac, he's no worse.  

 

And Arvidsson played 70 games in the AHL as a 21 year old and another 17 games the season after.  There are first liners developed in the AHL, so if getting more centres increases the long term potential of wingers, we should see these kind of players coming out of the Marlies, but we don't.  Bracco is exactly my point.  Boucher would probably be leading the AHL in scoring too if he hadn't been injured.  We don't want more Boucher.  We rather have more Motte.  Will Lind become Motte?  Maybe.  That won't be determined by whether he plays with Hamilton or Graovac.  Motte was a star in college; most NHL bottom sixers were scorers at lower levels.  How much Lind scores in the AHL won't matter as much as how well his skillset fits in the NHL.   But the bigger point is if he can't be a driver himself in the AHL, then he won't ever make it to the NHL.  This is a league where Chris Terry and Nathan Walker are top scorers.  Where Max Legace is a legitimately good goalie.  If a prospect can't score on Legace unless they get an all-star centre, how will they score against anyone in the NHL?  At the end of the day, which NHL prospect made it further in their career because of an AHL centre?

 

Small side point, but Perron was a trade -- the Canucks gave Pyatt and a 6th to SJ for him and a 7th.  There may not have been a centre available for that trade.

 

The bolded is where you're still missing my point. The main benefit of signing a Groavac level player is having flexibility when injuries hit in terms of call ups. You've made it clear that you don't think this is important, but there's a reason why one of Benning's main goals was to acquire sufficient depth at every position. He talked about how beneficial it would be to be able to call up Baertschi for an injury in the top 6. He has acquired depth for the most part, just not at center. 

 

There's no way a signing at this level would make any significant change on our Playoff chances. There's no way a signing at this level would be the difference between a prospect turning into Motte or Arvidsson. 

[Nuxfanabroad]

1 hour ago, Captain Canuck #12 said:

So what happened...we're still in suspense! 

Merely a pt, it would appear (OT loss)