Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan Coke
I agree, It was someone else that said ‘what if Jankowski’s time in the A at the beginning of the year helped home have a better season?’ So it is the same pointless game of what if.
He did what was needed to make the team out of camp, but the team kept lazar, stajan, Hamilton, on the roster and in the lineup over him.
What did the 10 games matter in the end? Who knows. Maybe we get a few more points, but thankfully the team was so bad that a few more points wouldn’t have mattered.
I just have a philosophical aversion to icing less than your best possible team (and sending the message that performance in camp has minimal impact on personnel decisions). To me it was a mistake, much like Sutter playing hardball with Gio and him going to Russia.
It has all worked out, but it was still a mistake IMO.
|
So, do you have a philosophical aversion to balancing the best possible roster with maximizing the value of assets? As has been pointed out NUMEROUS TIMES there were mitigating factors which contributed to Jankowski's short stint in the AHL this season, and had NOTHING to do with what happened at camp. Moreover, given what Treliving said to Jankowski after camp I think it is impossible too argue that he felt in any way devalued, or that his in-camp performance was not noticed or dismissed.
This is such an impossibly binary view of things. Posters need to accept that in the NHL there is more at stake in making starting roster decisions than mere performance.