This is the year for the Flames to prove they can graduate prospects from the AHL

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I think the answer is in your question.

How can Andersson prove he's better without an injury or an opportunity? In that you have a potential problem but a necessary one as the opposite is even worse.

If the Flames moved Stone before training camp because Andersson looked great in Penticton they'd be idiots (and I'm not suggesting you said that).

So instead you watch and you learn. If he looks ahead of everyone in Penticton you note it, and make sure you leg him out in main camp. When rosters get cut down you play him in those last exhibition games against mostly NHL teams and you take notes.

If there are no injuries then you send him down with the word that he's close. Go dominate the AHL and we'll go from there.

Injury comes up and you bring him up. If he does well you have a decision.

I think it has to go that way.

The alternative is MacTavish telling the media that Draisaitl has made the team in the middle of summer. NO thanks

I think the Flames are set up really well for promotion of two young defenders. With Stone on the third pair you can bring in Andersson and Wotherspoon, then platoon them as the #6 guy, playing with a capable vet. They both get great playing opportunities and are sheltered enough to gain the experience they need. More importantly, they are playing with the guy they are most expected to compete with and will have direct comparisons for evaluation. Fantastic position to be in for all parties involved. I hope they don't screw this up by thinking they have to keep Bartkowski around for some strange reason.

[SeanCharles]

How can anyone say there isn't any opportunity for the defence prospects when we only have 5 legit NHLers signed?

The Flames will carry 7 and all 2 of them have to do is be better than Bartkowski and they will win a roster spot. Seems like a real opportunity to me.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by SeanCharles

How can anyone say there isn't any opportunity for the defence prospects when we only have 5 legit NHLers signed?

The Flames will carry 7 and all 2 of them have to do is be better than Bartkowski and they will win a roster spot. Seems like a real opportunity to me.

This year sure, but those 5 legit NHL'ers are signed for 2 seasons after that.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

I agree in general, but you have to keep in mind that progression is not linear and that a player may be ready to make the jump at time A, but isn't given the opportunity, and then sustains an injury, or goes into a slump, or gets frustrated, and then never gets back to the point when they're ready to make the jump.

The inevitable comeback is that if a player can't prove they're ready for the NHL over a long time period, they never will be truly ready for the NHL, I think may be true some of the time, maybe even most of the time, but it's not true all the time.

If your organizational philosophy is that a player has to consistently prove they belong on the NHL roster NOW by the way they play in the AHL, I submit to you that you WILL miss out on some NHL players.

The question, and I don't think anybody has the answer, is whether you get more NHL players as a result of this philosophy than you lose as a result of this philosophy.

Maybe Dustin Boyd could have been an NHLer if he were given the opportunity when he was peaking. We will never know, because he wasn't. And I don't mean to get into an argument as to whether Dustin Boyd, even at his peak, was ready for the NHL, because I honestly don't remember.

I think a too-rigid philosophy that treats all players the same, including that they have to continue to prove their worth in the AHL for long periods of time before being given a chance at the NHL level, ignores that hockey players are human and therefore not all the same. I think you have said as much in this thread.

I totally agree.

And I think they've made some mistakes due to a fear of rookies contributing to a standings hole that they couldn't dig themselves out of. Its an insecurity.

If the Flames played Wotherspoon during the 14/15 season they wouldn't have had to piece together such a mess for that playoff series when Giordano went down. They didn't.

This year they wouldn't put Kulak in for fear of missing the playoffs, and instead had a really weak pairing for the final 20% of the season that was a liability.

Sometimes you have to say a mistake or two with the chance to improve is better than just dressing a guy that makes mistakes anyway.

Now with Stone though they don't have that low hurdle. It's higher, and it should be for a team that wants to win now.

[SeanCharles]

Originally Posted by Itse

This year sure, but those 5 legit NHL'ers are signed for 2 seasons after that.

Doesn't mean you can't make a trade. Defenceman are arguably the most valuable currency player wise.

If a youngster proves himself I don't see it being too difficult to make room.

This is a good problem to have

[Flames Draft Watcher]

http://www.sportsnet.ca/960/boomer-m...t-goal-flames/

Loubardias interview from this morning. He addresses the very issue in question partway through the interview. Basically says there's no reason to rush them, they'll make spots when they're ready, they aren't married to the top 5 veteran defensemen for eternity. Says how for years we praised the Detroit model of overcooking youngsters. Says they were never criticized for that, that rushing prospects is an issue while the reverse isn't.

Loubardias feels as I do that we may have defense looked after for the next decade. How is that a bad thing? How are we worried about that?

[Bingo]

The Flames do have a great historical example of the leave a spot open and have three guys battle for it idea.

Mike Vernon, Rich Koski, and Marc D'Amour to backup Reggie Lemelin in September of 1985.

D'Amour won the job but struggled with hydration clearing the decks for Mike Vernon after Xmas. By March he was the starter and the Oilers went down in game 7 6 weeks later.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Says how for years we praised the Detroit model of overcooking youngsters. Says they were never criticized for that, that rushing prospects is an issue while the reverse isn't.

The problem is that Detroit hardly did what was suggested. They relied on some incredibly talented players to carry that team. How many games did Datsuyk play in the minors? Zero. How many years did Zetterberg play in the minors? Zero. Franzen? Zero. Dekeyser? Zero. Larkin? Zero. Kronwall? 102 games, 76 of which were because of the lockout. Filpulla? 77 games, or one season. Abdelkader? 109 games, or a season and half. Helm? 122 games, or a season and a half. Athanasiou? 83 games, or a year and a quarter. Sheahan? 111 games, or a season and a third. Nyqvist? 137 games, or chunks of three seasons where he also played a total of 97 NHL games. The only player I see as being cooked for any significant period of time is Tatar, and he spent four seasons in the minors, or 265 games. There wasn't much "over-cooking" involved. That's a good story, but it doesn't hold much water. For the most part, Detroit is a "play one season in the minors, and we'll get in the lineup during the next season, if you play in the minors at all" kind of organization.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

I think there is a big difference in saying "we are leaving a spot open on the 3rd line for Jankowski" and saying "we have an open spot on the roster, and we think one of 4 or 5 rookies are in competition for that spot".

I think, historically, we haven't really had those spots. Once Monahan was drafted, four years in a row guys have forced their way onto the roster, but these were guys picked in the top 6 (or were Gaudreau), and were clearly better NOW than probably all but 5 or 6 forwards...

I think I generally agree with what you are saying, but I wanted to point out that the list of rookies who have made the team in successive years since 2013 includes Michael Ferland, who was not drafted in the top six, nor is he clearly better than all but five or six forwards.

The Oilers are clearly on the opposite side of this argument, and one does not even need to look any further back than this past season. Puljajarvi should not have been playing in the NHL this year and it was patently obvious from the start. Ideally a team wants to find a good balance between easing their prospects into the lineup and ensuring that they are at least in a good position to learn on the job..

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

Yeah sure Andersson today probably isn't as good as Stone today. But they signed Stone for 3 years. I called the Hickey situation and people got defensive. Because they don't look at the perspective of the player, they only think of their own fanaticism and assume the best for themselves, aggressively attacking any deviation from that homerism.

Now I'm not saying Andersson will request a trade or something. But if he has a good camp, good year in the AHL, then he would have to be dumb to not explore his options. There's no question he's got a high ceiling and talent, and there's also no question that he believes that himself.

Any player that thinks they should be given a spot, or avoids a team due to competition, is no player that I want on my team.

Tommy Erixon syndrome.

I highly doubt Andersson will follow that route. But if he does, #### him - we have other prospects.

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I totally agree.

And I think they've made some mistakes due to a fear of rookies contributing to a standings hole that they couldn't dig themselves out of. Its an insecurity.

If the Flames played Wotherspoon during the 14/15 season they wouldn't have had to piece together such a mess for that playoff series when Giordano went down. They didn't.

This year they wouldn't put Kulak in for fear of missing the playoffs, and instead had a really weak pairing for the final 20% of the season that was a liability.

Sometimes you have to say a mistake or two with the chance to improve is better than just dressing a guy that makes mistakes anyway.

Now with Stone though they don't have that low hurdle. It's higher, and it should be for a team that wants to win now.

I'm not sure if the Flames are exhibiting a fear based approach though. Their approach could be completely logical.

They have more information on Kulak and Wotherspoon than fans do. Lets say through watching these guys in games and practices, they have decided that these two don't have more then 3rd pairing/7th defencemen upside.

If that is the case, whats the point in giving these guys lots of games in the NHL to develop if the Flames managers feel like there isn't going to be a payoff down the road?

You can acquire a fully developed end of the roster defenceman for peanuts. Why bother living through the rookie mistakes of a guy that will be a limited veteran?

I think for the most part NHL teams are pretty damn good at identifying talent. There are a few scattered stories of guys who played 3-4 years in the minors and then went on to become a top six option or top four D, but it's not the norm.

Even an undrafted guy like Giordano only played 2 years pro before cracking a much better D-core than the Flames have had through most of Wotherspoon's career.

If you look down NHL rosters, the lions' share of guys have played 2 seasons or less in the AHL. I would say roughly half skipped it all together or played less than half a season. Odds are that if you have spent 4 seasons in the minors, you are a borderline NHL talent at best.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by New Era

The problem is that Detroit hardly did what was suggested. They relied on some incredibly talented players to carry that team. How many games did Datsuyk play in the minors? Zero. How many years did Zetterberg play in the minors? Zero. Franzen? Zero. Dekeyser? Zero. Larkin? Zero. Kronwall? 102 games, 76 of which were because of the lockout. Filpulla? 77 games, or one season. Abdelkader? 109 games, or a season and half. Helm? 122 games, or a season and a half. Athanasiou? 83 games, or a year and a quarter. Sheahan? 111 games, or a season and a third. Nyqvist? 137 games, or chunks of three seasons where he also played a total of 97 NHL games. The only player I see as being cooked for any significant period of time is Tatar, and he spent four seasons in the minors, or 265 games. There wasn't much "over-cooking" involved. That's a good story, but it doesn't hold much water. For the most part, Detroit is a "play one season in the minors, and we'll get in the lineup during the next season, if you play in the minors at all" kind of organization.

Actually what you're completely overlooking or intentionally ignoring, how many years did guys like Datsyuk or Zetterberg spend in Europe? When did their top prospects join the team? At what age? Dekeyser played 4 years in college so he isn't comparable to a 20 year old coming out of junior now is he?

Your analysis is biased because it's focused on the minors. Letting prospects cook in Europe or in college is exactly the same thing. Try focusing on what age the prospects cracked the NHL.

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Actually what you're completely overlooking or intentionally ignoring, how many years did guys like Datsyuk or Zetterberg spend in Europe? When did their top prospects join the team? At what age? Dekeyser played 4 years in college so he isn't comparable to a 20 year old coming out of junior now is he?

Your analysis is biased because it's focused on the minors. Letting prospects cook in Europe or in college is exactly the same thing. Try focusing on what age the prospects cracked the NHL.

Not really sure the data are as slam dunk as your post's tone suggests. All of these guys with the exception of Franzen (who became an NHLer in his draft +2 season), Kronwall (who took a long route), and DeKeyser (who was signed by Detroit as a UFA) saw NHL time in their Draft +3 or Draft +4 seasons, and most were regular NHLers by that time.

Datsyuk and Zetterberg both played their Draft +1, +2, and +3 seasons in Europe then came over and made the NHL squad. So the equivalent of a full junior career and a season in the AHL.

Franzen played his Draft +1 season in Europe, then came over and made the NHL squad.

Larkin played 3 years of college, then split the next three years between the AHL and the NHL.

Tatar came to the AHL after being drafted, played 9 NHL games in his Draft +2 year, then split his draft +3 year between the AHL, NHL, and Europe before becoming a full time NHLer in Draft +4.

Athanasiou (a 4th rounder) played parts of his Draft +4 season in the NHL before became a full time NHLer the next season.

Abdelkader played 3 years of college, one year of AHL, then became a full time NHLer.

The guys who support your point are Kronwall (Up to draft +3 in Europe, then parts of the next two seasons in the AHL), Filppula (also played up to Draft +3 in Europe, then one season in the AHL), and DeKeyser, apparently, if signing a UFA who plays 4 years in College somehow counts as "seasoning your prospects".

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Actually what you're completely overlooking or intentionally ignoring, how many years did guys like Datsyuk or Zetterberg spend in Europe? When did their top prospects join the team? At what age? Dekeyser played 4 years in college so he isn't comparable to a 20 year old coming out of junior now is he?

Your analysis is biased because it's focused on the minors. Letting prospects cook in Europe or in college is exactly the same thing. Try focusing on what age the prospects cracked the NHL.

Okay, let's look at it your way. From the time they became Detroit property.

Datsuyk? Draft + two (23).
Zetterberg? Draft + two (21).
Franzen? Draft + zero (25).
Dekeyser? Free Agent + zero (22).
Larkin?Draft + one (19) .
Kronwall? Draft + three (20).
Filpulla? Draft + three (22).
Abdelkader? Draft + three (21).
Helm? Draft + two (21).
Athanasiou? Draft + three (21).
Sheahan? Draft + three and a half (21).
Nyqvist? Draft + three and a half (22).
Tatar? Draft + four (22).

Seems most of their players are 21 or 22 by time they make the team and no different than guys finishing up their junior careers. No significant over-cooking like the narrative suggests.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by New Era

Okay, let's look at it your way. From the time they became Detroit property.

Datsuyk? Draft + two (23).
Zetterberg? Draft + two (21).
Franzen? Draft + zero (25).
Dekeyser? Free Agent + zero (22).
Larkin?Draft + one (19) .
Kronwall? Draft + three (20).
Filpulla? Draft + three (22).
Abdelkader? Draft + three (21).
Helm? Draft + two (21).
Athanasiou? Draft + three (21).
Sheahan? Draft + three and a half (21).
Nyqvist? Draft + three and a half (22).
Tatar? Draft + four (22).

Seems most of their players are 21 or 22 by time they make the team and no different than guys finishing up their junior careers. No significant over-cooking like the narrative suggests.

Abdelkader is always the example given, but I always thought that was circumstances more than some philosophical stance.

[Oil Stain]

As an argument against AHL=development I present the San Jose Sharks.

They have been chucking their prospects into the deep end since the lockout and have also been one of the best teams since that time.

Milan Michalek played 7 games in the AHL. Bernier around half a season.
These guys went straight onto the second like with Marleau.

Vlasic straight into the NHL at 19.

Torrey Mitchell straight into NHL from college at 21.

Setogouchi played 1 games in the AHL. Into the NHL at 20. I believe he played with Thornton right off the hop.

Couture, half a season in the A.

Hertl straight onto Thornton's line at the age of 19.


There's a few more, but generally the San Jose Sharks seem to prefer the sink or swim method of development, and they have had some pretty good success with players turning out.

Colorado was another team that in the past just shoved prospects into the lineup and they also had some really good success as well.

Ryan O'Reilly playing in the NHL immediately after being drafted from the second round is unheard of. He has turned out fantastically.

The more I look at stuff like this, the more I think having a good development system is way more about picking the right players than it is about nurturing those players to become what they are.

Now if I were a GM, I'd probably be from the Poile/Burke school that has pretty much every prospect play at least half a season in the AHL. It's better to be safe, than to end up with a guy on the main roster that isn't helping the team. Also, I feel like time in the AHL may help players realize how great it is to be playing in the NHL, so they may be less likely to take it for granted.

But, I'm not sure there is any great merit to those ideas. It seems like the right thing to do, but in reality, it probably doesn't do a whole lot to change the makeup of any individual player.

The ones with talent and drive will make the cut, and the ones lacking in those things will probably fail to live up to expectations regardless of how hard you try to develop them.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

I agree in general, but you have to keep in mind that progression is not linear and that a player may be ready to make the jump at time A, but isn't given the opportunity, and then sustains an injury, or goes into a slump, or gets frustrated, and then never gets back to the point when they're ready to make the jump.

The inevitable comeback is that if a player can't prove they're ready for the NHL over a long time period, they never will be truly ready for the NHL, I think may be true some of the time, maybe even most of the time, but it's not true all the time.

If your organizational philosophy is that a player has to consistently prove they belong on the NHL roster NOW by the way they play in the AHL, I submit to you that you WILL miss out on some NHL players.

The question, and I don't think anybody has the answer, is whether you get more NHL players as a result of this philosophy than you lose as a result of this philosophy.

Maybe Dustin Boyd could have been an NHLer if he were given the opportunity when he was peaking. We will never know, because he wasn't. And I don't mean to get into an argument as to whether Dustin Boyd, even at his peak, was ready for the NHL, because I honestly don't remember.

I think a too-rigid philosophy that treats all players the same, including that they have to continue to prove their worth in the AHL for long periods of time before being given a chance at the NHL level, ignores that hockey players are human and therefore not all the same. I think you have said as much in this thread.

Boyd had every opportunity in the world. He even out-negotiated Sutter IIRC to get a one-way (or was it a high AHL salary?). Either way, you may want to check for yourself how many games Boyd got on the Flames.

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/p....php?pid=71963

06-07 == 13 games with the Flames - that's a good 'cup of coffee', and one might say he might have been rushed since that was his first pro season and he was not physically ready for pros.

07-08 == 48 games with the Flames. That's a really long look. He actually spent MORE time in the NHL than the AHL (though I can't quite recall, it seems he had an injury that year)

08-09 == 71 games with the Flames. That's basically "Made the team". He only played 5 games in the AHL.

09-10 == 60 Games with the Flames before getting traded to Nashville, who have always been a DESPERATE team for offensive-minded forwards. He didn't cut it in Nashville for 18 games, and was subsequently traded to Montreal.

2010-11 == 10 games with Montreal. Montreal obviously felt he was NOT an NHL player, and was subsequently demoted to their AHL farm team. This was his LAST season in the NHL. He has been playing for Astana in the KHL ever since.

What team gave him the absolute best chance? Calgary IIRC was also the best team out of the three at the time as well. I would go so far as to say that Boyd got more chances than he deserved in Calgary.

Calgary gave Boyd 192 games out of his 220 total. I would say that is WAY more than just a 'chance'. Boyd only spent 89 games in the AHL. Boyd can actually be a good example of why you SHOULDN'T make room for prospects on the team until they are really ready. Perhaps if Boyd spent some more time in the AHL for development, he may not have fizzled out and ended up playing in Kazakhstan.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by dobbles

Also, the whole "you have to earn your spot" stiff makes me laugh. Because training camp and preseason are pretty short and poor measures of a players abilities. Not to mention when there are close battles almost every time the veteran stays and the young player with waiver exemption gets sent down to save assets. Organizations need to give players opportunities to prove themselves aside from the preseason when games are not anywhere near the same intensity or competition level.

I'm a believer in leaving a spot open for multiple prospects to fight over, and only plug with a vet if none works out. Still, though, none of Gaudreau, Monahan, Bennett or Chuck played a day in the AHL it's hard to draw a hard line vs San Jose

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by New Era

Okay, let's look at it your way. From the time they became Detroit property.

Datsuyk? Draft + two (23).
Zetterberg? Draft + two (21).
Franzen? Draft + zero (25).
Dekeyser? Free Agent + zero (22).
Larkin?Draft + one (19) .
Kronwall? Draft + three (20).
Filpulla? Draft + three (22).
Abdelkader? Draft + three (21).
Helm? Draft + two (21).
Athanasiou? Draft + three (21).
Sheahan? Draft + three and a half (21).
Nyqvist? Draft + three and a half (22).
Tatar? Draft + four (22).

Seems most of their players are 21 or 22 by time they make the team and no different than guys finishing up their junior careers. No significant over-cooking like the narrative suggests.

I'm on board with your point (obviously, as I posted essentially the same thing) but I think your numbers are off by one year.

If a player is drafted in 2005, their Draft +1 year is 05-06, not 06-07.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

I think for the most part NHL teams are pretty damn good at identifying talent. There are a few scattered stories of guys who played 3-4 years in the minors and then went on to become a top six option or top four D, but it's not the norm.

But we're aren't necessarily talking about top of the roster players, are we? Blue chip, high draft picks usually make the NHL early. They also tend to be the guys who fill up the top of the roster.

But the depth guys, the 3rd and 4th liners and 4-6 D, are usually drafted outside the top 20. And they usually take years to develop.

I wouldn't expect an Oilers fan to understand this, but you can't just draft your high picks, and then fill out your roster with veteran depth players. In a capped league, teams need a steady intake of guys they drafted to fill out their depth positions. That takes time. And patience.

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

As an argument against AHL=development I present the San Jose Sharks.

And I counter with the Ducks.

Vatanen: NHL regular at Draft +4
Silfverberg: Draft +4
Montour: (assuming he cracks the lineup next year) Draft +4
Theodore: " " Draft +4
Manson: Draft +4

Or how about the Predators.

Josi: Draft +5
Ellis: Draft +4
Sissons: Draft +4
Ekholm: Draft +4
Watson: Draft +5

And heck, why not look at the back-to-back Cup winners.

Guentzel: Draft +4
Sheary: Draft +5
Rust: Draft +6
Dumoulin: Draft +6
Cole: Draft +5

And we've gone this far, here's the other conference finalist.

Methot: Draft +5
Stone: Draft +4
Hoffman: Draft +5
Pageau: Draft +4
Dzingel: Draft +5