Quote:
Originally Posted by kehatch
I will close with this. In a cap league the difference between being a contender or not being a contender is often the ability to add an impact player from your system. An impact player on an ELC is pure gold in a cap system.
If you have a young player on a budget contract ready for the NHL and capable of making a difference then you play him.
Tanner Glass, Freddie Hamilton, or Garnet Hathaway playing 8 minutes or less a night won't be the difference. Matt Stajan taking the occasional defensive zone draw won't be the difference.
Jankowski might be a difference maker. There is still plenty of time to get him in the roster. But after the camp we just had it is discouraging to see the coaches and management prioritize veterans and grinders over him.
|
I hear what you're saying and I somewhat agree.
However, I would argue that in a cap league, everything ultimately comes down to proper cap management. You need to spend and manage your salary cap wisely. Treliving has shown time and again his ability to do that.
Sitting Stajan or Brouwer and giving Jankowski that spot isn't good cap management. Neither is sending either down to Stockton. Good teams manage their cap well. Bad teams give Lucic $6M/year for seven years.
If the team believes Jankowski is a top 6 forward, playing him in a 4th line role isn't going to help his development. He would be better served playing top 6 minutes in Stockton.
When injuries occur, Jankowski will have his chance to come up and play meaningful minutes with the parent club. In the meantime Treliving will continue to work away trying to make the roster better. That might be through a trade or another signing, either way what we can't accuse Treliving of is undue loyalty to veteran players.