Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe
Baertschi is a funny thing - some people will point at the Hartley altercation where Baertschi ended up crying as the 'this is why he didn't work out'. While I believe it was obviously wrong of Hartley to have had that strong of a reaction to Sven, the reaction came for a reason, right? I mean, Hartley wasn't going off on everyone like that. In fact, one of the big issues with Hartley was that he preferred the youth and got along better with young players. It was always the vets that he would have issues with.
I remember when Sven played on the Flames, I started noticing how damn lazy he was. He just glided everywhere. If I was at the game, I could count how many strides he would take on some shifts on one hand. That was Baertschi.
Sure, his concussion probably made him avoid contact, hence his terrible efforts on puck battles. That at least has some underlying explanation... but the lack of actual strides out there? Baertschi to me was sticking out like a sore thumb compared to the 'hard working' Flames - everyone skated and competed hard, except for Baertschi.
I also think part of the issue when it came to Baertschi was Feaster - he forced Baertschi on the roster. I had my suspicions by this point. The instant that Burke fired Feaster, he demoted Baertschi, and that's when the famous Burke speech came about from. He was bang on. That's what I was seeing - Baertshi worked hard in the offensive zone only, and even then not always.
Then there was also that sense of entitlement. Sven spoke about it when he went to Vancouver - how they would call someone else up 'as if to throw it in his face'. Vancouver didn't change anything.
So morale of the story - Sven was lazy and would never have worked out especially considering he had a sense of entitlement, Hartley was an ass that treated people poorly, Feaster wanted his 'young superstar' in the NHL to appease his own vanity, and Burke should have given that feedback to Baertschi in private.
When it comes to Bennett, the issue was that he simply wasn't given enough rope. This is the message from Conroy himself, and he basically stated that not every prospect is the same, and that it can't always be fair. Sometimes a prospect just needs more rope than a different prospect, and that Bennett should have had that here. I think Conroy was right, as Bennett got that rope right away in Florida, and never looked back. He was also looking like he was turning around under Darryl Sutter here, but that's a small sample size.
Neither of these cases have anything to do with Parekh. Conroy was here for both Baertschi and for Bennett. I am sure he has his own thoughts on how to bring up prospects the right way. Parekh doesn't strike me as lazy, and I do believe that if he does falter, that Conroy will make sure that he gets enough rope until it is absolutely obvious that he isn't an NHL'er. Until then, I wouldn't worry about past prospects not making it - not every prospect makes it, and there are many things that can stunt development. Other than the injury, I thought Parekh was progressing nicely, including defensively. Offence wasn't quite there, but like I said in my previous post, the entire team was playing lousy offensively at the time.
I am not really worried about Parekh still, other than him not having that awareness as guys target him. That's my one and only worry about him. I think he will end up as an offensive dynamo, and that his defence will be fine too - I doubt he will end up like "BouchDumb" up north, and I would be very surprised if he busts. Too much IQ in the kid, and too much maturity. Exactly how good he will be is the million dollar question, but I think he was developing fine in the NHL up until his injury.
|