Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSquatch
Tons of people, analysts, GMs, etc have spoken of the "Red Wings" model, where you have all this talent in the AHL, NHL ready guys, and they're really seasoned, and when you call them up, boom, no problem, they're ready.
|
As a Wings fan in that era, I personally think the well seasoned model was way overblown. Honestly, it was only possible from the pre-cap era and time not catching up to the wings as fast as it could have. They had those stacked teams and players like Datsyuk and Zetterberg on hugely team friendly deals. Heck even Lidstroms contract was always a solid value for being a perennial Norris winner.
Once time started catching up to them, we saw their model was terrible and the wheels fell off quickly.
One example from that era that feels similar to your Valimaki debate: Kyle Quincey. It was the fall of 2008 and Quincey had been a decently solid prospect for several years. He had followed the overseasoning strategy and was no longer waiver exempt. The Wings in their affinity for veteran players decided to waive Quincey so they could keep 87 year old Chris Chelios on the roster. Quincey goes to LA, gets some solid minutes and has a near 40 point season. Goes to Colorado and puts up a few decent seasons.
Along comes the 2012 trade deadline and the Wings need some depth on defense and what do they do? Get into a 3 way trade to get Quincey back. They give up a first rounder that turns into Andrei Vasilevskiy for a guy they waived a few seasons earlier!
Now, it remains to be seen if Valimaki will turn into one that got away. Doesn't really seem to be that way. But to me it points to a larger problem teams all struggle with. An unwillingness to try and let young players fail forward. And I get that if you are competitive and every game counts, you can't have a liability out there. But to me, it seems to be a HUGE double standard where vets can go out there and lay stinkers for weeks at a time, but if a rookie makes a mistake, all of a sudden he's benched and sent back down.
On an even larger scale, I really think a lot of fans needs to try and put some personal perspective on player development. Almost universally on this board is the opinion that all prospects need to give 140% and earn every single shift they get. And while that's a noble goal, remember our own life experiences when we have careers and see others get favored when they might not be deserving. To see others get 2nd, 3rd, 4th chances that we might not get. It happens all the time. And while many people can turn that into a positive motivating factor, lets not assume someone doesn't care or isn't worthy just because they got screwed over and didn't come back even harder. Almost all of us have been in situations where we knew we needed a change. Most of us have had bad bosses that just weren't our style. And in many cases we can start looking for another job and everyone can be happy. That's quite a bit harder when these players don't have control of their destiny during their developmental years.
Lastly, and you guys will really love this! What makes a good leader? Is it someone that forces their style on everyone or is it someone that see's the assets and liabilities of their team and puts them in the best positions to succeed. I think most would pick the latter. But how many times in this thread and others do we read that players have to conform to Sutters system??? Sure I get it. He has 2 more Stanley Cup rings than any of us. If we are going to use that excuse then we might as well shut the board down since none of us have NHL experience. But I think fans should really think about the validity of a strategy that is so rigid and how it might affect younger players. Some people need the hard@&$ coach that pushes them. Some might not respond as well. That doesn't make them weak or wrong. People are just different.