Quote:
Originally Posted by jaikorven
Regarding Glass, is it 100% fair to assess him on only his past work over the years or is it possible that people can change and that is why he 'earned' a spot? I am a believer in the benefit of the doubt, only because he seems to be one of the guys that are giving 100%. If he craps the bed 10 or 20 games in, on a consistent basis, then he goes down and someone else comes up, At this point in time, he does deserve the spot, in my opinion.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaikorven
In all honesty I agree with everything you say but would hope that people could at least consider that at his age he may realize that he needs to give more (as in everything he has) just to stay in the league and maybe that would make enough of a difference to make him a useful 4th liner. Maybe not, so I also see the side that doesn't want to take the gamble. He could just start to coast after gaining a contract.
|
It isn't about
effort. For a non-unproven-prospect, it's about being an NHLer. Is Chris Butler an NHLer? So if Chris Butler gave you two preseason games where he didn't play like Chris Butler (or like that rare "good Butler") how would you feel about saying Chris Butler "earned" a contract?
At the end of the day earning a contract isn't about playing hard or even looking good for a brief period. It's about getting paid to contribute to team wins over an 82 game period. Tanner Glass has played on some good teams, and I bet you fans of those teams would even say he played pretty hard and gave it his all - but most of the evidence we have at our disposal says that "his all" just doesn't cut the mustard at the NHL level. In fact we have an argument in place that "his all" didn't cut the mustard
at the AHL level last year.
It's about being sensible. Signing Tanner Glass is not sensible. If Tanner Glass has outplayed Luke Gadzic, that doesn't mean Tanner Glass has earned a roster spot... it means Luke Gadzic failed to earn a roster spot and so did Tanner Glass.