Quote:
Originally Posted by GranteedEV
I would add that Chris Tanev wasn't some untouchable piece you "had" to protect. If Kylington had forced his way into a protection conversation a year ago, you expose Tanev and you live with the outcome, whether it's Gio or Tanev on the outs. Tanev's an awesome player, but his skillset is far easier to acquire. This idea pushed by Textcritic et al that it was in the team's best interest to:
i) Diminish Kylington's trade value
ii) Hold Kylington back from over 50 potential games of legitimate development towards his ceiling (artifically inflating the experience gap between him and guys like Hanifin and Andersson)
iii) Put a more plodding product on the ice last year, in a year they failed to make the playoffs
is... laughable at best.
|
Sure, when you construct a straw-man of another's position it is usually laughable. But this is really a poor representation of what I have said about this in the past:
Kylington didn't force his way into the protection conversation last year, and he was left unprotected. I don't believe for a second that this was by design, but I certainly do think that management was happy to keep him out of the lineup so long as he was not a positive contributor, and that they were aware of his potential which had not been met all along.
i) Not what I have suggested—rather, I have always maintained that Kylington was not playing at the level he needed to in order to stay in the lineup, and that it was easy for the team to keep him on the practice roster as a result. I have no doubt that for Treliving the expansion draft was always something that he reflected on and was able to navigate effectively, but at no point have I thought that this was the primary goal. If Kylington had played better last year when he did play, he would have been in the lineup more often. There was no intent to diminish his trade value (and no proof that it actually was), but by the same token management was probably also not terribly bothered by how easily Kylington was flying under the radar last year.
ii) No one was holding Kylington back except Kylington. I don't know how it is that so many posters cannot see the incredible difference in his quality of play this year compared to any other time in his entire professional career. But this is the NHL—in the coaches eyes last season (including those of Coach Sutter) he was probably playing at a similar level to Valimaki or Andersson, but it is always easier to keep young guys out of the lineup unless they give you no other choice. There was no concern about losing Valimaki to expansion, so it was easier to play him than Kylington. Kylington did not make that decision a difficult one last year, and there is no "artificial inflation of the experience gap" here.
iii) With the way that Kylington was playing last season, and—I assume—with how he appeared in practice, ALL the coaches (including Coach Sutter—the same coach who has added him as a regular to this year's lineup) seem to have thought that he didn't make nearly enough of a difference to keep him in the lineup.
Again, I remain bewildered by how petty and jaded some of you guys are about what looks to be a tremendous success story for both Kylington and the Flames. Smile. Be happy.