Ryan Lambert article on sending Monahan down

[kirant]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Can someone clearly explain how one year of entry contract makes a lick of difference to a non cap team? Will we suddenly be in call trouble in three years? I'd fire the whole management if that's the case.

The concept for those supporting a Chicago styled rebuild is the idea that you can stuff young players on cheap contracts during your big Cup run years. Kane and Toews were lower cap hits making pretty low amounts (3.8 and 2.88 respectively) and a few other players made about 60-70% of next year's salary (huge example is Keith being on 1.5 million), which gave them room to absorb Huet's bloated contract and buy in some expensive UFAs to polish off the team.

Wasting an ELC year on a noncompetitive year for them grinds away at the possible timeline to take advantage of lower wages.

[East Coast Flame]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Can someone clearly explain how one year of entry contract makes a lick of difference to a non cap team? Will we suddenly be in call trouble in three years? I'd fire the whole management if that's the case.

Having Kane, Toews and Keith on their entry level deals allowed the Hawks to sign Hossa in 09-10 and win the cup.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by East Coast Flame

Having Kane, Toews and Keith on their entry level deals allowed the Hawks to sign Hossa in 09-10 and win the cup.

Keith wasn't on his entry level deal, he was on his second contract.
Besides, they won with all four of those guys making big money last year. It's not that your stars have to be on their ELC's, it's that you have to have a mixture of ELC's and big contracts.
Chicago was 10th in the West the year Toews and Kane debuted, and 13th the year before that (the exact same place Calgary was in last year). That's not to say that a rise this year to 10th in the west, and then deep into the playoff the next two years is even remotely likely, but it IS possible. Chicago had he luxury of a few more years in the depths to build up their prospects, but careful drafting and proper development can go a long way.
We're concerned about burning a year of his ELC, but there will be other important pieces on ELC when the time comes, and hell, even Monahan could be on the last year of his ELC when we make a push. It's not like it hasn't happened before.
Sending him down is a contract decision, nothing more. He's doing well right now, and he'll likely fall off a bit, but there's nothing to learn from the OHL once you know you can play in the NHL.

[thefoss1957]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Can someone clearly explain how one year of entry contract makes a lick of difference to a non cap team? Will we suddenly be in call trouble in three years? I'd fire the whole management if that's the case.

If he is returned to Juniors, the Flames would be able to get a year for Monahan in a developmental league, while deferring the possibility of having to get into a bidding war for his 2nd contract by a year...not a cap issue, but, certainly a CASH issue.

Moreover, he is still a teenager, and a year of physical growth and maturity, while competing at a less physically demanding level, would have to be balanced against the physical and mental grind, and steep learning curve, of a full season in the World's most elite Hockey league.

I can understand how a conservative approach might benefit the Kid's long term development. But I can also understand Flame fans impatience to see the most talented possible roster possible in competition. If I was a decision maker for an NHL team, I would take a conservative approach with a 19 year old.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by kirant

The concept for those supporting a Chicago styled rebuild is the idea that you can stuff young players on cheap contracts during your big Cup run years. Kane and Toews were lower cap hits making pretty low amounts (3.8 and 2.88 respectively) and a few other players made about 60-70% of next year's salary (huge example is Keith being on 1.5 million), which gave them room to absorb Huet's bloated contract and buy in some expensive UFAs to polish off the team...

This only works with regards to contracts in groups, and in the event that a team is close. If the Flames were within three or four years of competing for the Stanley Cup, then it might make sense to save the year of Monahan's ELC. The Flames are most likely at least four years away, and this most likely makes the loss of one ELC year practically negligible.

There will be more opportunities for the Flames to capitalise on ELC years, but from other players than Monahan, so long as they manage the next three-four years effectively. I expect that the players who will give the Flames the most "bang for their buck" are likely to be the 2015–16 rookie crop. Gaudreau should make the team next year, along with a defenseman (Seiloff or Wotherspoon), and possibly Poirier. The following year we should expect then to see pushes from Klimchuk, Jankowski, Arnold, and another defenseman or two. It is THESE PLAYERS who will benefit the Flames the most on their ELC deals, not Monahan or Baertschi, or likely even Gaudreau.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by thefoss1957

...I can understand how a conservative approach might benefit the Kid's long term development. But I can also understand Flame fans impatience to see the most talented possible roster possible in competition. If I was a decision maker for an NHL team, I would take a conservative approach with a 19 year old.

If Monahan can play at an NHL level; if he can continue to improve; if he gets quality ice-time and continues to have a good attitude, then there isn't really a good reason to send him back to Juniour. I think the solution is as simple as that.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by thefoss1957

If he is returned to Juniors, the Flames would be able to get a year for Monahan in a developmental league, while deferring the possibility of having to get into a bidding war for his 2nd contract by a year...not a cap issue, but, certainly a CASH issue.

Moreover, he is still a teenager, and a year of physical growth and maturity, while competing at a less physically demanding level, would have to be balanced against the physical and mental grind, and steep learning curve, of a full season in the World's most elite Hockey league.

I can understand how a conservative approach might benefit the Kid's long term development. But I can also understand Flame fans impatience to see the most talented possible roster possible in competition. If I was a decision maker for an NHL team, I would take a conservative approach with a 19 year old.

Yeah but you missed a huge point. If the kid's ready to play in the NHL, he's ready to play. I can see the benefits of the conservative approach but you seem to boil it all down to the Flames wanting to rush the kid, push him when it isn't needed because it's impatience.

Feaster stacked the deck against this kid to start camp, moved Galiardi to the middle even and said "play better and he won't play centre". Monahan kept busting through the doors, passed all the tests. This isn't a case of rushing a kid because of impatience, the kid is ready. The Flames aren't in cap trouble and aren't exactly running out of cash anytime soon.

Play the damn kid.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

I like it when baseball dorks try to extrapolate the stats from their individual sport and relate it to an actual team sport. Its really funny.

I like it when willfully ignorant people completely ignore that teams worth hundreds of millions of dollars are investing in analytics and using them as a tool in player evaluation.

You might want to go tell guys like Ray Shero and Peter Chiarelli that they're simply wasting their time and their team's money by investing in non-traditional statistical analysis. I'm sure once you explain that it's just for a bunch of dorks and has no value in a sport like hockey, they'll see the light.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by thefoss1957

If he is returned to Juniors, the Flames would be able to get a year for Monahan in a developmental league, while deferring the possibility of having to get into a bidding war for his 2nd contract by a year...not a cap issue, but, certainly a CASH issue.

Moreover, he is still a teenager, and a year of physical growth and maturity, while competing at a less physically demanding level, would have to be balanced against the physical and mental grind, and steep learning curve, of a full season in the World's most elite Hockey league.

I can understand how a conservative approach might benefit the Kid's long term development. But I can also understand Flame fans impatience to see the most talented possible roster possible in competition. If I was a decision maker for an NHL team, I would take a conservative approach with a 19 year old.

Except I don't think Monahan has anything left to learn in junior.

So far, the deficient aspects of his game appear to be body positioning, faceoffs and adjusting to the speed of the game. Going back to Junior doesn't help him learn those things, playing against competent NHL'ers is where he will learn.

Toe-dragging around 17 year old defenders and roofing it on a 17 year old goalie isn't going to help him become a better player, it will just make him a flashier player. When he gets back to the NHL, he'll still have to work on those deficiencies I listed above.

Battling in the corners against the likes of Jason Garrison, Vlasic or Bryan Allen is superior experience than battling in the corners against Doug Blaisdell.

Some prospects benefit from that, but I don't think Monahan has anything left to prove in that league, he's an NHL'er right now.

[indes]

Burning a year of his ELC shouldn't even be a factor at this point, what should matter is if he is improving in all facets of the game over his 9 game stint. If he's getting better than let him play and let the owners and gm worry about paying him later. We don't have a single player on this team worth 6m so I don't see the harm in him becoming one in 3 years.

[opendoor]

Another factor related to keeping Monahan up is that he'll be a UFA when he's 25. Not a huge deal, but it would likely not only make him more expensive 2 years from now but also after that, as UFA years in an RFA's extension generally drive the price up.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by thefoss1957

If he is returned to Juniors, the Flames would be able to get a year for Monahan in a developmental league, while deferring the possibility of having to get into a bidding war for his 2nd contract by a year...not a cap issue, but, certainly a CASH issue.

Keeping Monahan up could save money on his 2nd contract because presumably his points totals would be less than if he stayed in junior one more year.

IMO cash or cap issues should have no factor in keeping Monahan up or not. It's what's best for his development. It is very unlikely the Flames would get in cap issues down the line because of one year in Monahan's contract.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Another factor related to keeping Monahan up is that he'll be a UFA when he's 25. Not a huge deal, but it would likely not only make him more expensive 2 years from now but also after that, as UFA years in an RFA's extension generally drive the price up.

One of those problems that you don't mind having if he's earned the paycheque.

[GirlySports]

If he's good play him and then pay him.
Seems detrimental to make a great draft pick and then stunt his growth.

He doesn't have to play every game, they can sit him if he's struggling or tired but he still gets to practice with the team. They can even send him to the World Juniors.

[Goodlad]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Except I don't think Monahan has anything left to learn in junior.

So far, the deficient aspects of his game appear to be body positioning, faceoffs and adjusting to the speed of the game. Going back to Junior doesn't help him learn those things, playing against competent NHL'ers is where he will learn.

Toe-dragging around 17 year old defenders and roofing it on a 17 year old goalie isn't going to help him become a better player, it will just make him a flashier player. When he gets back to the NHL, he'll still have to work on those deficiencies I listed above.

Battling in the corners against the likes of Jason Garrison, Vlasic or Bryan Allen is superior experience than battling in the corners against Doug Blaisdell.

Some prospects benefit from that, but I don't think Monahan has anything left to prove in that league, he's an NHL'er right now.

I was coming back into this thread to post these exact points. It should also be noted that these are parts of Monahan's game that were considered exceptional at the Junior level, which even more emphasizes the point that there's not much left for him to learn there.

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Originally Posted by thefoss1957

If he is returned to Juniors, the Flames would be able to get a year for Monahan in a developmental league, while deferring the possibility of having to get into a bidding war for his 2nd contract by a year...not a cap issue, but, certainly a CASH issue.

Moreover, he is still a teenager, and a year of physical growth and maturity, while competing at a less physically demanding level, would have to be balanced against the physical and mental grind, and steep learning curve, of a full season in the World's most elite Hockey league.

I can understand how a conservative approach might benefit the Kid's long term development. But I can also understand Flame fans impatience to see the most talented possible roster possible in competition. If I was a decision maker for an NHL team, I would take a conservative approach with a 19 year old.

Everyone I see taking this stance fail to bring up some valuable points.

If the player is physically and mentally mature not to mention producing like Monahan has been, why would the OHL be better for his development?

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Dagger

http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index...ain-in-the-nhl

That's a more in depth look at Monahan and his ice time prior to the New Jersey game. I'm just saying that we're all (rightfully) very high on him right now but when he isn't scoring and getting the ice time he is right now with some of our better players(which is likely), then what happens? If you think it's better for his development to play limited minutes in the NHL then OK that's your opinion and some might think he's better refining a few more things in the OHL. It's a matter of preference, but people shouldn't be butt hurt about metrics that NHL teams are paying increasing attention to because they are generally very accurate. Wasn't long ago that using Fenwick suggested a Minnesota team that was first place in the West at the December was likely to miss the playoffs whilst the then out of the playoffs LA Kings were an elite team that was getting ridiculously unlucky....and they strolled to the Stanley Cup as their luck regressed to the mean throughout the season and in the playoffs.

If he can't earn more than token ice time then absolutely send him down. The question is will he regress that far or will he pull back some but continue to grow his overall game and therefore ice time. I'm betting on the latter - he strikes me as a fast learner. But neither will I be surprised if he get sent back and I certainly won't be butt hurt.

[thefoss1957]

I am more wary of the PHYSICAL aspect of the game...a Center, at 19, and listed 6'2", 187, my question would be, is he ready to take the beating that an NHL Center must absorb? A year to grow/condition/strength training wouldn't be a negative...and femur, radial, and humerus growth plates would normally fuse by age 20...the kid may not yet be completely grown.

That said, I am truly a neutral observer here, just pointing out the various, and IMO, valid discussions on the pros and cons of the decisions that the Flame brain trust must be considering.

My own inclination would be to be cautious...


Edit: Bandwagon, I don't think OHL D-men are usually in the 210 to 235 pound weight range that you see on NHL rosters...that is why the OHL, IMO, is better for developing young men who's bones are not fully mature.

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Originally Posted by thefoss1957

I am more wary of the PHYSICAL aspect of the game...a Center, at 19, and listed 6'2", 187, my question would be, is he ready to take the beating that an NHL Center must absorb? A year to grow/condition/strength training wouldn't be a negative...and femur, radial, and humerus growth plates would normally fuse by age 20...the kid may not yet be completely grown.

That said, I am truly a neutral observer here, just pointing out the various, and IMO, valid discussions on the pros and cons of the decisions that the Flame brain trust must be considering.

My own inclination would be to be cautious...


Edit: Bandwagon, I don't think OHL D-men are usually in the 210 to 235 pound weight range that you see on NHL rosters...that is why the OHL, IMO, is better for developing young men who's bones are not fully mature.

Where are you getting that he is 187lb? Last I heard he was in the 205 range..

[19Yzerman19]

I wish I had come to this earlier because I can't weed through the three pages of intolerably silly nonsense about how "advanced" stats are unreliable for this, that or the other reason, confusing shots with real-time stats like hits and blocked shots, and some guy referring to Corsi as "Corsica". What the ever-loving #####? If you don't know, just keep your mouth shut. It's embarassing.

As for the subject of the article, he's wrong for one simple reason. Monahan has played better than many players on this team. He has earned a spot. I firmly believe that if you don't give the spot to the player who earned it - whether it's for ELC reasons, or because you feel he might progress better in junior, or whatever else - you are sending a bad message to your team and failing to create the proper atmosphere. All other considerations aside, an NHL team should always be a meritocracy. Which is why Brad Richards gets scratched for playoff games.