How much NHL is too much NHL? - Prospect Edition -

[PugnaciousIntern]

Long-time CP stalker here, first thread. Now that our team is in full fledged rebuild, I've been very curious about the whole concept of 'developing' prospects and the concept of 'rushing' prospects into the league. Sorry if this is a useless thread, let me know and I'll take it down.

I'll start with a cluster of questions, and end with my main question:

If we bring up an 18 year old player who then puts up 22 goals (aka Mr. Boring) and then let's say he goes on to score 400 career goals, is there a chance we did him a disservice? Could he really have 'developed' more in a lesser league, and then attained an even higher ceiling? Do players truly improve at a faster rate in the AHL, or would they develop just the same regardless of AHL or NHL experience? Does development truly stall when players reach 'Johnny G level' in a lesser league? At what point should development be achieved at the NHL level?

I have suspicions on most of those questions, but not too many solid facts (just anecdotes) to back those suspicions up. They all lead my to my core question:

Do we actually HURT prospect development when we bring them up to the NHL 'prematurely' (whatever that means).

(For example, did Feaster actually ruin Sven's development? Is that truly irreversible damage?)

I don't have many solid answers, but here are some truths that I can gather:

1. Every prospect needs time to develop prior to the NHL. Whether that time is 5 years in the AHL, or a few years of Timbits through Midget and then straight into an NHL starting job, everybody needs time.
2. Every prospect is different, ranging in rate of development and ranging in peak performance.
3. Not all prospects can make the NHL.
4. Everybody can develop more.
5. Edmonton is No Good.

[Azure]

If someone is not physically ready for the NHL, yes you will hurt them. If they are not mentally ready, yes you will hurt them. There is a natural progression that good prospects take. Some are ready right after being drafted, most aren't. With Monahan, one thing we kept hearing is that he has a good head on his shoulders which could be the reason the mental side of the game never seemed to affect him and he did quite well.

Physically, players break down over the long schedule, and they need to be ready to withstand that.

IMO, there is absolutely nothing wrong with keeping someone in the AHL, even if they are NHL ready and because of different circumstances you don't want to call them up to the big club. There is always stuff to work on, and always stuff to get better at. Usually good prospects who will be great players end up being great players at some point, even if they stay in the minors longer than normal.

[codynw]

It depends on the player. Monahan was ready for the NHL, but if he had been AHL eligible he probably would have been sent there.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by PugnaciousIntern

...If we bring up an 18 year old player who then puts up 22 goals (aka Mr. Boring) and then let's say he goes on to score 400 career goals, is there a chance we did him a disservice?

No. Any 18-year-old player who has been given the chance to play in the NHL has been given a gift, regardless of how it turns out.

Originally Posted by PugnaciousIntern

Could he really have 'developed' more in a lesser league, and then attained an even higher ceiling?

Maybe. I think it depends on the player. In Monahan's case, I don't think another year in Juniour would have hampered or helped his development in any significant way. For some players, issues of size, strength, intestinal fortitude will naturally keep them off the team, but Monahan is such a solid kid in all areas that the grind of a full NHL season which might wear down another young player ended up having little impact.

I think the issue with mapping development is not so much about maximising a player's ceiling as it is preparing a player for sustaining a high enough level of play to succeed at the NHL level—if that makes any sense. Baertschi is already a 0.5 pts/game player at the NHL level, but is not quite ready to play in the NHL because of all the other things a player needs to be successful beyond scoring. I don't think that he would necessarily be a more offensively dangerous player had he had a more gradual pace of development thus far, but I do think that he would be a much less polarising player as a result. Development is more about smoothing edges, polishing, and rounding.

Originally Posted by PugnaciousIntern

Do players truly improve at a faster rate in the AHL, or would they develop just the same regardless of AHL or NHL experience?

Not faster or slower, but differently. Like I said above, "seasoning" in a lower league gives players time and opportunity to polish that they don't necessarily get at the NHL level. I think Monahan is a bit of a different case here because of his size, strength and style which makes it possible to put him in different roles where some of this seasoning can occur at the NHL level, but would not necessarily work for other players like Gaudreau, Granlund, Baertschi, etc.

In the end, I think that if a player is good enough, he will get there. The Oilers' phenoms may be a good example here. All four of Eberle, Hall, Nugent Hopkins and Yakupov are good enough players to play in the NHL. All are (probably) skilled enough that they will score consistently at the NHL level. But all four also have massive, gaping holed in their games that would have been vastly improved with more time at lower levels and in different playing situations. I think more development for them likely would not have made much difference in their abilities to generate offence, but it would have made them all MUCH more valuable players for gaining a better, more complete understanding of the game, and for making them complete players.

Originally Posted by PugnaciousIntern

Does development truly stall when players reach 'Johnny G level' in a lesser league? At what point should development be achieved at the NHL level?

I think it can, yes, but I also suspect that it rarely happens. Gaudreau has "outgrown" the NCAA, and I think had he played his senior year, his development could have been in danger of stalling. However, that is also a significant product of the NCAA schedule, and it is probably different than "outgrowing" Juniour or the AHL as a result. To that end, I think that Gaudreau is an extremely special case, and is one of only the smallest fraction of players who ever outgrew a developmental league. I don't think Gaudreau would have gotten worse, nor do I think such a scenario would have endangered his NHL potential so much as it would have put him behind in his development. If and when it happens "stalling" likely means more than anything that a player requires additional time to make the jump that he ordinarily would not have needed.

As for the second question, there are probably four or five answers that all depend on the player, the team, the system, and (like it or not) the market. The answer for the Flames is different than it is right now for the LA Kings or even the Vancouver Canucks, just as the answer is different for Sam Bennett as it is for Jake Virtanen or Valentin Zykov.

Originally Posted by PugnaciousIntern

Do we actually HURT prospect development when we bring them up to the NHL 'prematurely' (whatever that means).

(For example, did Feaster actually ruin Sven's development? Is that truly irreversible damage?)

To the first question, yes and no. I think it more than anything causes unnecessary delays, but that these are likely not to be very significant in the long run. What I do think is that when it comes to handling player development the best course is to err on the side of caution with every player. What that means is that players should if at all possible not be added to the NHL roster until they are absolutely ready. In other words, premature entry into the NHL is probably more detrimental to the player and the team than a delayed entry.

As for the second question, I do not think that Baertschi has been irreversibly damaged by "premature" NHL experience. What is of much greater concern to me is his injury history, and more than anything I think that this is at the root of his somewhat rocky development track. I think that he has struggled to make and stick with the Flames because of the psychological toll that a couple of bad hits have taken. The Flames look to me to be treating with caution and providing Baertschi a wide berth to overcome the long-term effects that a couple of concussions have had on his will and his confidence. If Baertschi does not make it, I suspect it has much more to do with some unfortunate accidents than anything the Flames did or did not do.

In the end, it is always up to the player to make it to the NHL and to make the best of it. Those that never do, or those that do but never meet their "potential" could probably not have been helped by different decisions made by the team in their development. A lot of luck and some timing is involved, but the best players will always find a way.