[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

The thing is, Setoguchi and other established NHLers have a different pace to get up to playing speed than do prospects—prospects who have been playing for several weeks longer.

Maybe that should change? If a guy can't come to camp prepared to beat out someone competing for the same job then I see a problem. I really don't care how long the prospects have been playing. If you're coming to camp to earn a job, be prepared to out play anyone who challenges you. You shouldn't have to rely on an excuse of a needing a different pace. These guys are supposed to be professionals at the height of their field. They should get schooled by some young kid coming in.

There should be no problem if Setoguchi is given an extra two or three weeks to prove himself. He can be dispatched to Adirondack at ANY time and replaced by one of the other worthy players—whomever happens to be stepping up in the early stages of the AHL season.

Sure, if the team doesn't mind risking the first month of the season. If the team is serious about competing, they ice the best team out of the gate. If Setoguchi, or any other veteran for that matter, needs a few more weeks to get their #### together then maybe they should do that in Adirondack and let the players who came to camp prepared to compete for a job play in the NHL. These guys are supposed to be professionals. Maybe they should start preparing and acting like it?

I have said this now a bunch of times, and it still bears repeating. Previous NHL experience counts for SOMETHING.

I hear what you are saying, and it makes some sense. If you are a star player at your position, then sure, that counts for something. If you are some shlub on a one year, league minimum contract, who has been on a massive decline and under-performed for each of the last two teams you were employed by, then that experience means NOTHING. Wouldn't you agree? Otherwise, shouldn't Brookbank still have a month to show his stuff?

Even within Hartley's mantra of "earned not given" previous experience will factor in at some point. It's not a slight against young players, and its not something to get worked up about because they will all get their shot—if not all this season.

See, here's where we really have a departure on philosophy. Why should a guy have a spot handed to him because he was good five years ago? If he gets worked by four other guys in camp, why should he get an extra month to try and get his crap together because he was an effective NHLer several years ago? You may think it means nothing, but tell that to the kid who worked his ass off to prove he was better, and did so, and lost out on $100K because some veteran 'needs' another month to prove himself. If the guy is essentially on a tryout contract, and he doesn't impress more than four other guys, does he really deserve more time?

Who do you replace Wideman with?

Take your pick of any of the guys that got sent down. Wideman was the worst defenseman in camp by a large margin. Of course Wideman has never been much of a defenseman to begin with, but he's been exceptionally bad. To make things worse, he's been bad trying to move the puck out of the zone and on the PP. I appreciate there are other things that come into play when selecting who you retain on the roster, but when a guy stands out like that, you have to do something. Man, I thought Brookbank looked better, and they flat out released the guy.