Matthew Tkachuk and the 9 games

[drewtastic]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

"Matty Tkachuk and the Nine Games" would be an awesome name for a band.

Also: "The BiPolar MessageBoard"

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

Actually you can't say we know that. Some rookies come into the league and tear it up? How did they master the NHL level without already having played in it?



Your logic is flawed

We do.

Some rookies are significantly better than others. All of them still need to learn. Not even Ovechkin and Crosby came in as "masters"...

[sureLoss]

FWIW Hrudey thinks the biggest issue to send Tkachuk back is that he thinks Tkachuk might get bored in major junior like Getzlaf was and would be of no development value.

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

We do.

Some rookies are significantly better than others. All of them still need to learn. Not even Ovechkin and Crosby came in as "masters"...

You said "The only thing that we do know is that to learn the NHL game, you need to play in the NHL." But now you're justifying it by saying some rookies are better than others, as if a rookie never got better by playing hockey? Look at Giordano, who didn't become anywhere close to an NHL defenseman until after the AHL and even KHL, and still, didn't become a Norris candidate until years after being in the NHL. So according to your theory, he didn't learn anything until he played in the NHL?

Do you know anything about the human brain? You argue that identical twin experiments are needed to support the argument for junior-level development yet claim that NHL-level development is a proven fact even though it's just as baseless. You would make a terrible scientist!

Like I said, flawed logic

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

You would make a terrible scientist!

Oh no.

[bigrangy]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

FWIW Hrudey thinks the biggest issue to send Tkachuk back is that he thinks Tkachuk might get bored in major junior like Getzlaf was and would be of no development value.

That was because of the lockout, I imagine. If 04-05 had been played I think he would have been in the NHL.

Tkachuk is capable of playing in the NHL right now, no doubt about it. He's fairly old for his draft year and he's been raised in this environment. The coaches and people surrounding him here will likely be better for his development than the (also excellent) people in London.

It's all a matter of if keeping him up introduces changes in his game due to him not being as physically developed as the men he's playing against. He plays well when he's powering through guys, but if he's unable to do it here, he might change his game to a more finesse style. It's not a matter of where he'll get the best development, it's a matter of where he should be playing to develop the style of game that makes him the most effective and the Flames want out of him. I think London will be the best place for that.

[Firebot]

Tkachuk has the size to be able to play in the NHL right now. What exactly would putting him back to juniors do exactly? He has already won the Memorial Cup and got the game winner. He has nothing to learn from Juniors, he dominated last year. His mistakes are because he is a rookie in the NHL where junior moves or antics do not work as well. How is sending him in the juniors help him on that front? He wont get those out of his game there.

He needs to play with the big boys (as he has shown he is physically able to), and learn from his junior mistakes the hard way. He got benched last night after taking a stupid offensive penalty. The prefered place may be the AHL, but he is not elligible. NHL as a 3rd liner until he gets comfortable is the perfect place for him. Both Monahan and Gaudreau started the exact same way

[Calgary4LIfe]

I always think that there has to be a certain threshold reached for a prospect to be able to play in the NHL. A threshold that includes a certain level of skill, physical ability (being strong enough), maturity, etc. If a prospect doesn't hit that threshold, then he is hurt by 'rushing' him into the NHL.

When I look at Tkachuk playing, I think: "He is NHL-ready."

I don't think another year of junior will really make him get ready. For the argument of being 'the man' on his team - I also agree with some posters that stated he very much was 'the man' on the Knights, especially through the Memorial Cup run which is when 'the man' needs to step-up the most.

He is also a fairly unique kind of prospect. Monahan, Gaudreau, even Bennett - I would have been extremely upset if they were asked to skate on the 4th line. Tkachuk? He is the type of player that can skate on any line. Of course you don't want him on the 4th for a long time - especially most of the season - but the argument is that he can very well continue his development and be placed on the 4th line at times.

On the other hand, will junior hurt him? The danger is that he just doesn't take it seriously, and feels the Flame were not fair to him.

The one thing I care about now is expansion. Yes, he won't factor into expansion at all - in fact, keeping him on the Flames perhaps helps to shield another player that may otherwise be given the opportunity to shine and be selected. Moot point at best.

What isn't a moot point is that there will probably be another expansion on the horizon. 2 years? 3? 4? Delaying the start of his pro career will push him out of the availability window, and allow the Flames to use a protection spot on someone else. This year, I am really not worried about losing anyone - Jokipakka, Shinkaruk, Poirier, etc. It will suck no matter what, but that is what happens.

Next expansion, you will have some of the prospects more developed. What happens if Jankowski is on the team and doing really well? Kylington? Andersson? Mangiapane continues to impress and forces himself into the lineup?

Flames are probably going to lose a pretty good player down the road. That is going to suck. They will lose one no matter what happens, but every spot you can save helps.

It may not be a good enough reason to save a year on Tkachuk, but there is a definite benefit. Doing so after he plays 10 games even derives increased benefit, as I would bet his 2nd contract would be smaller.

However, what do I think is best for Tkachuk? I think he has passed the threshold where development could be impaired by staying in the NHL. He is NHL-ready. The more I see him play, the more confident I feel. I think he is more NHL-ready than Shinkaruk, and probably anyone else that the Flames have on the farm. I think his development would best be served and probably be accelerated if he played in the NHL this year. If you are looking at what is best for Tkachuk only, I think that keeping him in the NHL is in Tkachuk's best interests.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

Flames are probably going to lose a pretty good player down the road. That is going to suck. They will lose one no matter what happens, but every spot you can save helps

This is probably overstated. Many teams will lose a depth player or two. Perhaps some of those players will thrive given a larger role, but we're talking a handful at best.

Teams with a good farm system shouldn't be unduly effected, and there's still the trade/free agent route to fill holes.

Goaltenders are the one variable, because it's an important position. Still, Las Vegas can only pick up a couple of them.

Expansion is expansion. Las Vegas will pick up a few spare parts and cast-offs.

Las Vegas isn't going to be an instant All-Star team.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

This is probably overstated. Many teams will lose a depth player or two. Perhaps some of those players will thrive given a larger role, but we're talking a handful at best.

Teams with a good farm system shouldn't be unduly effected, and there's still the trade/free agent route to fill holes.

Goaltenders are the one variable, because it's an important position. Still, Las Vegas can only pick up a couple of them.

Expansion is expansion. Las Vegas will pick up a few spare parts and cast-offs.

Las Vegas isn't going to be an instant All-Star team.

I was not referring to the Vegas expansion draft, but the expansion draft down the road (whenever it happens). The core is young right now for the Flames, and there are more kids being developed. In 2, 3, or 4 years, the Flames are much more likely to lose a much better player than they will this time.

I agree with the rest of your post completely, and feel there is nothing to freak out about this expansion draft.

[dustygoon]

Bennett is an interesting comp. injury meant he missed a year. Without the injury, he may or may not have ended up in junior from the outset. Did a full year of not playing set him back? I don't think so. Why not keep tkatchuk around for whole year playing half the games? Stay below 40 games of course

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

I was not referring to the Vegas expansion draft, but the expansion draft down the road (whenever it happens). The core is young right now for the Flames, and there are more kids being developed. In 2, 3, or 4 years, the Flames are much more likely to lose a much better player than they will this time.

I agree with the rest of your post completely, and feel there is nothing to freak out about this expansion draft.

2-3 years down the road you hope the likes of Jankowski, Shinkaruk, Klimchuck make you expose guys like Brouwer, Froilk, or Backlund.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

2-3 years down the road you hope the likes of Jankowski, Shinkaruk, Klimchuck make you expose guys like Brouwer, Froilk, or Backlund.

Not many would have put Klimchuk in that group a month ago. I love that he is making some noise.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by dustygoon

Bennett is an interesting comp. injury meant he missed a year. Without the injury, he may or may not have ended up in junior from the outset. Did a full year of not playing set him back? I don't think so. Why not keep tkatchuk around for whole year playing half the games? Stay below 40 games of course

If you're going to keep Tkachuk, you play him. Maybe spot him a game here or there, but keeping him means you keep him to play.

On any given night, I'd say Tkachuk is one of our four best wingers. Which says something about the state of our NHL wing depth, but also is a feather in the young man's cap.

Matt Tkachuck deserves to be here.

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Not many would have put Klimchuk in that group a month ago. I love that he is making some noise.

Yeah he has been a pleasant unexpected surprise so far. I expect guys like Monahan, Bennett, Tkachuck to be top 6 forwards in time. Gaudreau obviously has established himself as one. But the Flames do need one more from the current group of prospects to step up. Get a group with 5 guys under 25 in those roles who are home grown and they should be in good shape.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

2-3 years down the road you hope the likes of Jankowski, Shinkaruk, Klimchuck make you expose guys like Brouwer, Froilk, or Backlund.

Yes. Except we should never expose Backlund.

[Enoch Root]

I don't think sending a player back to junior has ever hurt them. Certainly there have been a few that were bored, and wasted a year, like Getzlaf for instance. And I believe the same would be true for Tkachuk - it wouldn't harm him, but I doubt it would teach him much (other than bad habits).

There are definitely players who were harmed by keeping them up. Typically, this includes players who are either mentally or physically not ready for the NHL. Neither of those apply to Tkachuk.

For me, the thing that tips the scales is that he already thinks and acts like a pro. He has been around pros all his life and was emotionally ready for being a pro before he got here. He already knows what it takes to be - and is - a pro.

He is also physically ready, and his game can handle it.

The other issue is the contract argument, which, IMO, is completely irrelevant, simply because the future is entirely unknowable. Will burning a year now help, or hurt the cap situation in two or three years? Absolutely unknowable.

The only sensible approach is to do what you believe is best for the player, and based on the fact that he is capable of playing in the NHL, plus the fact that he is already a pro in every sense, sending him down seems pointless to me.

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Yes. Except we should never expose Backlund.

Never say never. Backlund is a model Flame and very effective player. But right now he is in the sweet spot of his career. With how the game is trending, do you want a 5 million dollar third line center whos 31 with 4 years left on his deal? Thats where he could be in 3 years.

[devo22]

nvm, read it wrong.

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by devo22

^^ that doesn't mean you risk losing him for nothing in an expansion draft ... that'd be horrible asset management. If he's too expensive to retain, you flip him at the deadline in 2018.

Either way its all off topic and arguing hypotheticals. My point is that GMs hope the players from within the system challenge your veterans. If a younger cheaper guy plays so well that you have to protect himover the veteran. Its a good thing.

Plus I dont think I would call it losing a player for nothing. Shedding a termed contract for a player over 30 with dollars left on it has better value to teams than a lot of players in the league right now.

I will say that letting Tkachuck skate with Backlund and Frolik on the road might be okay. Opposition teams will try to get their top lines away from these guys on the road. Bennett was really getting traction on that line last year before the move to center. Tkachuck may do the same.