[News] Flames will keep Monahan for the rest of the season - Page 7 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

TheSutterDynasty · 10-23-2013, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Monahan is ready. He has shown he's ready.

No doubt he's looked pretty good. So did Sam Gagner in his first few games as an 18 year old. That first year seemed to really stall his development.

Is 9 games a good enough sample size in an 82 game schedule?

DOOM · 10-23-2013, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSutterDynasty

No doubt he's looked pretty good. So did Sam Gagner in his first few games as an 18 year old. That first year seemed to really stall his development.

Is 9 games a good enough sample size in an 82 game schedule?

So you want him to go play in a worse league when he has shown he can play in the NHL?

Seems like that would be worse for his development.

sureLoss · 10-23-2013, 02:34 PM

Kind of interesting that the Flames have already committed Sieloff to the World Juniors. Implies they think it is better for his development to go to the tournament regardless of the Heat's place in the standings and/or Sieloff's role with the team (i.e. they are putting Sieloff's development needs over the needs of organization)

The fact the Flames have not made a decision to Monahan's participation seems to indicate there is a debate or scenario(s) were they think its not beneficial to Monahan.

Or the mostly American upper management is trying to sabotage Team Canada.

Goodlad · 10-23-2013, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSutterDynasty

Can someone please explain to me the difference between the Flames burning a year on Monahan's ELC in a year that we (realistically) will not compete vs the Oilers doing the same and 'ruining' their prospects?

We should be playing the Detroit system and letting prospects ripen in Junior before bringing them in when they're ready. Playing in the NHL for a complete year can shatter a 19 year old's confidence and stall/ruin their development.

There's a huge difference in the development curve of a mid-to-late 1st round pick and a 6th overall pick. You can't really expect the proper development path to be the same.

Look at how Baertschi was moved through the ranks. Sent back to junior, then spent time last year up and down between Abby and the big club. Now this season getting very limited/sheltered minutes. It seems to be working quite well so far. Monahan was a different situation.

Poe969 · 10-23-2013, 02:34 PM

you say 9 games isn't a big enough sample size to see if he's good enough. I say in 9 games, he hasn't shown why he should be sent down.

He can still be sent down any time, they've just comitted to using a year of his ELC. If anything, it's a boost to his confidence. If he craps the bed after 30 games, he can still be sent down but for now he's earned his spot with the Flames.

codynw · 10-23-2013, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tvp2003

I see your Hart and raise you this:

I see your Conn Smythe and raise you....

Spoiler!

Coach · 10-23-2013, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSutterDynasty

Can someone please explain to me the difference between the Flames burning a year on Monahan's ELC in a year that we (realistically) will not compete vs the Oilers doing the same and 'ruining' their prospects?

We should be playing the Detroit system and letting prospects ripen in Junior before bringing them in when they're ready. Playing in the NHL for a complete year can shatter a 19 year old's confidence and stall/ruin their development.

Burning their ELC's is not what ruined the prospects for Oilers (although it hasn't/won't help their cap situation). What has been hurting the Oilers is slotting their kids into top line minutes as teenagers whether they were ready or not (talent wise or physcially).

Monahan seems physically ready for the NHL which is the biggest hinderance for young players coming into the league. And it could be argued that a step back to Junior might hurt him both because of a step down in play and because he has been our best player and earned his spot and to send him down after than would be counter-productive to him and the team as a whole. If the ONLY reason you can think of to send a kid back is that you are hoping to save money on him in a few years, it's not exactly a great message to send as it implies you're more concerned with your (hypothetical) money situation than you are with his development.

Also don't forget, he can still be sent down anytime before February.

_Q_ · 10-23-2013, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSutterDynasty

No doubt he's looked pretty good. So did Sam Gagner in his first few games as an 18 year old. That first year seemed to really stall his development.

Is 9 games a good enough sample size in an 82 game schedule?

I'd say so... 9 games is more than 10% of the schedule. That's about as good of a sample size as you can get while still considering it a "sample size" rather than "portion of a season".

Rerun · 10-23-2013, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poe969

I'm not sure this looks shattered...

Can't you see how Sven and Stemps are trying to console him in a group hug?

neo45 · 10-23-2013, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSutterDynasty

Can someone please explain to me the difference between the Flames burning a year on Monahan's ELC in a year that we (realistically) will not compete vs the Oilers doing the same and 'ruining' their prospects?

We should be playing the Detroit system and letting prospects ripen in Junior before bringing them in when they're ready. Playing in the NHL for a complete year can shatter a 19 year old's confidence and stall/ruin their development.

Detroit hasn't been good at developing prospects for a decade

sureLoss · 10-23-2013, 02:38 PM

Monahan press scrum:
http://downloads.flames.nhl.com/podc...ahan_oct23.mp3

sounds like he is going to live with another family (ie not the Hudlers)

codynw · 10-23-2013, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DOOM

Detroit's drafting and system is so overrated.

It seems to be working pretty well for them. I mean they haven't missed the playoffs in over 20 seasons, so..

PeteMoss · 10-23-2013, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSutterDynasty

No doubt he's looked pretty good. So did Sam Gagner in his first few games as an 18 year old. That first year seemed to really stall his development.

Is 9 games a good enough sample size in an 82 game schedule?

I don't know about the Oilers guys.. but Monahan is a late birthday so he played an extra year of junior over most of the guys drafted. Most players drafted would have two years after being drafted where they would have to go juniors or NHL... Monahan only has this year left.

Meers · 10-23-2013, 02:39 PM

He's played well, so it's a tough call.

You have to hope that keeping him up doesn't ruin his development. You'd hate for the Flames to become Oilers South.

You'd also have to hope that keeping him up doesn't assure the Flames a 9th place finish in the West rather than a high pick to complement Monahan in future years.

My preference is to bring young players along more slowly.

TheSutterDynasty · 10-23-2013, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poe969

you say 9 games isn't a big enough sample size to see if he's good enough. I say in 9 games, he hasn't shown why he should be sent down.

He can still be sent down any time, they've just comitted to using a year of his ELC. If anything, it's a boost to his confidence. If he craps the bed after 30 games, he can still be sent down but for now he's earned his spot with the Flames.

That's a fair point, but the NHL is all about asset management. The point of a rebuild is to "start cheap" by bringing in prospects and drafting players who are on their ELCs and/or on cheap contracts, so that as you develop them in the next few years you have players on bargain contracts and you supplement that with free agent signings and trades.

By blowing a year on Monahan's ELC, the rebuild window has been crunched by that much. Now he's an RFA a year earlier and we have that much less cap that year.

This is ignoring the junior vs NHL development debate.

MrMastodonFarm · 10-23-2013, 02:46 PM

It's not blowing a year if he's ready to play in the NHL. I'd rather pay Monahan a bit more and take the cap hit then return him to junior to a slower lower level game that he has passed by.

Poe969 · 10-23-2013, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSutterDynasty

That's a fair point, but the NHL is all about asset management. The point of a rebuild is to "start cheap" by bringing in prospects and drafting players who are on their ELCs and/or on cheap contracts, so that as you develop them in the next few years you have players on bargain contracts and you supplement that with free agent signings and trades.

By blowing a year on Monahan's ELC, the rebuild window has been crunched by that much. Now he's an RFA a year earlier and we have that much less cap that year.

This is ignoring the junior vs NHL development debate.

The Flames don't seem like they'll be in any kind of "cap crunch" by the time that Monahan has to be re-upped. You could look at it and say that they consider him to be a cornerstone on his contract and giving him a contract a year earlier is a bit of a reward.

Another thing to consider is that sending him down might actually have a negative affect on his development. If you send him down, he may wonder why he was sent down after doing so well so far and he may start to resent the Flames.

He wants to stay, he's played well enough to stay. He's staying. I think the fact that Burke has a say in things means a lot. If we're trying to put the best team together, we play the best players and Monahan has been on of our best players so far. Again, if he does fall off the map, he can be sent down at any time.

Coach · 10-23-2013, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSutterDynasty

That's a fair point, but the NHL is all about asset management. The point of a rebuild is to "start cheap" by bringing in prospects and drafting players who are on their ELCs and/or on cheap contracts, so that as you develop them in the next few years you have players on bargain contracts and you supplement that with free agent signings and trades.

By blowing a year on Monahan's ELC, the rebuild window has been crunched by that much. Now he's an RFA a year earlier and we have that much less cap that year.

This is ignoring the junior vs NHL development debate.

The problem is that this is all that should matter. Contract status should not determine who plays on this team.

TheSutterDynasty · 10-23-2013, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Q_

I'd say so... 9 games is more than 10% of the schedule. That's about as good of a sample size as you can get while still considering it a "sample size" rather than "portion of a season".

I think it's key to realize that it's the first 10% of the schedule. While I've never played in the NHL myself it seems to me that the, for example, last 10% of the games are much, much more difficult than the first 10%. You've had the offseason to train and prepare, heal up any injuries, and mentally the excitement of being a rookie is there. The physical and mental toll, not to mention the strain that playing on a (likely) non-playoff team takes leads me to believe it's not a great sample size.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattyC

Burning their ELC's is not what ruined the prospects for Oilers (although it hasn't/won't help their cap situation). What has been hurting the Oilers is slotting their kids into top line minutes as teenagers whether they were ready or not (talent wise or physcially).

Another good point, but Monahan has averaged 20 minutes a night in the last two games and on a team that is sorely lacking offense the expectations for him are starting to rise. It's one thing to come in with no pressure and score 6 goals, and it's completely another when a team that is lacking offensive power to rely on you, which I'd suggest compares to the Oilers.

Physically he has seemed larger and more prepared than some of the smaller Oilers prospects, but he's only going to get focused on more as the year progresses. Nothing wrong with another year in Junior to peak.

What are the negatives to sending him down? He's going to dominate in junior, and have a chance to perfect his game. When have you heard of a player that gets sent down and stops caring because it's "too easy"?

FlamesAddiction · 10-23-2013, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSutterDynasty

Can someone please explain to me the difference between the Flames burning a year on Monahan's ELC in a year that we (realistically) will not compete vs the Oilers doing the same and 'ruining' their prospects?

We should be playing the Detroit system and letting prospects ripen in Junior before bringing them in when they're ready. Playing in the NHL for a complete year can shatter a 19 year old's confidence and stall/ruin their development.

To me, it comes down to both ability and maturity (physical and mental).

With the Oilers, a guy like Hopkins was ready when you consider ability, but he was like 160 lbs and not ready for the physical punishment. With Hall, I think he got away with a lot of recklessness in junior and wasn't 100% ready for adjusting that.

Monahan, at 6'2" and 193lbs is physically able to withstand the NHL game and he plays a relatively save style. Mentally, he seems prepared as well.

It's not 100% without risk, but I think the risk is more measured than with some prospects.