Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolven
The Canadiens are running a young D. Hutson, Guhle, Xhekaj, and Struble are all under 25 and now they've added old man Dobson who is 25.
I'm not saying that we should necessarily copy them but they made the playoffs while running a very young D group. It doesn't have to be a "tanking" strategy. Also, even if Kuznetsov, Solovyov, and Poirier came in as "rookies" they are all 23-24 years old with ~5 years of development in the Flames organization. They are not going to be as raw a 19yo Parekh.
I would rather see us load up on these young guys and have them split the spots:
LD Rotation - Weegar
Bahl - RD Rotation
LD Rotation - Pachal
LD Rotation: Kuznetsov, Poirier, Solovyov, Hanley
RD Rotation: Parekh, Kuznetsov
That could get each of those guys ~50 games in the NHL instead of having them play 0 games in the NHL and have Bean and Miromanov get those reps.
If you move Bean and Miromanov to the Wranglers (and they do not get claimed) then you can always call them up if any of Kuznetsov, Solovyov, or Poirier show that they are simply not ready or capable.
However, I suspect that if Weegar can make Hanley, the 34 year old undrafted waiver claim, look like a top 4 D then he can likey do the same with Kuznetsov, who is 23 and a more promising draft pedigree (mid 2nd).
I mean really, being 23 is like a magically power on this forum... unless you are a Flames prospect.
|
Kuznetsov 1
Poirier 0
Solovyov 15.
Those are the number of games that each prospect has played at the NHL level.
Let's contrast that with your example with Montreal - and I will use the stats up until the previous season, and not include games played last season, just to be clear.
Matheson: 547
Savard: 795
Barron (traded away in-season): 111
Xhekaj: 95
Struble: 56
Carrier (traded into Montreal in-season): 245
Mailloux: 1 (but only played a total of 7 games last season).
Hutson: 0
Though Montreal had some youth, Hutson and Mailloux (again, 7 games played last season) were the only really inexperienced defencemen. That's a world of difference. Look at how Montreal was able to shelter them with solid experienced partners. That's a drastic difference when comparing it with Calgary, especially if you include 3 rookies - AHL or from Junior.
I have been banging the drum that defencemen in the AHL - Solovyov, Kuznetsov and Poirier - should have all been cycling through the team as part of their development. Now we are at a crossroads with them. You can't throw this much inexperience into the lineup. You have ONE single defencemen that is accustomed to being the anchor on a pairing. One. This will be Bahl's first season where he is going to be asked to be the anchor.
It will be impossible to shelter 3 rookies. 2 is manageable - maybe. 3 I think is bordering on intentional tanking. This is why the Flames are rumored to be trying to trade for Byram, why they apparently in on Miller, why they wanted Hague back as part of the Rasmus deal (again, rumored). They don't seem to be very interested in running with 3 rookies.
I think that these three prospects - Kuznetsov, Solovyov and Poirier - all had legitimate enough upside that they should have been rotated through the bottom pairing for the last couple of seasons. Maybe the truth is that the Flames simply have decided that they are worth keeping in the organization to help shelter the next wave of prospects graduating from junior, but that they are not NHL caliber? I don't know. I think they should have been cycled through slowly with proper sheltering for the last 2 seasons, but they haven't been. They all have upside.
Solovyov has nice size and plays a physical brand of hockey, plus he is fairly mobile and moves the puck better than he is given credit for. He also has a bit of offence in his game, though by no means will he be counted on to be a point producer.
Kuznetsov has great IQ, nice size, great skater, and he transitions the puck well.
Poirier might still be the gem. I won't forget how scouts in the Poirier draft stated that he "has the 3rd best hands in the entire draft, forwards included". Kid kept getting hurt with unrelated injuries (including a nasty cut). I would really like to see him get reps in the NHL.
I just don't think you can have 3 at once. You run the risk of creating a terrible environment for them, where they end up getting rattled. Then the entire team gets rattled. Dubynk was famously 'sucky' in Edmonton, but it was because he had built up a bunch of bad habits because the Oilers kept icing a defensively crappy team. He couldn't trust the players in front of him, so he started cheating. I believe it was Trotz that said this, and after a couple of years in a couple of organizations with better environments, Dubynk became a pretty good goalie. I wouldn't want to put Wolf in that position.
Remember this famous quote?:
“There is no greater springboard to development than failure,”
That was Craig MacTavish during the period where the Oilers had a lot of high-end picks, and they all got bungled in some manner. That's the Oilers' philosophy for development. Putting inexperienced players in positions that they are not ready for will cause regression.
If we don't see eye-to-eye on this, I think we have to agree to disagree, and wait to see what the Flames end up doing. I think a lot of this discussion is premature anyway - a lot of this will be decided by the prospects themselves, and how good they perform through camp and preseason. Maybe you are right, and the Flames just throw 3 NHL inexperienced defencemen in the lineup nightly. Maybe they do well with it, and they prove me terribly wrong. I guess we will see.
Also, just to be clear, it has nothing to do with age. I support the notion that Bahl is ready to be an anchor with Parekh. I think it is a big ask of him, but I would try it at least. He just turned 25 last week. Next week, Solovyov turns 25 - I would not want him to be an anchor on any pairing (and I really like him). Miromanov is turning 28 in a couple of weeks - I also wouldn't want him anchoring a line with a rookie. I think it takes a combination of NHL experience, as well as established level of play.
I think Hanley + Weegar will be the top defensive pairing this season (unless the Flames acquire someone more experienced). I don't think Hanley would be a strong anchor, except maybe on the third pairing. Hanley has been functioning well with Weegar in the top 4, and this year they will have to take over the tougher defensive matchups that I think Andersson and Bahl made, so that Huska can shelter Parekh a little.
That's just how I think the game. Maybe we just think it differently. What we agree on is that these 3 defencemen that we are talking about should have been given more reps at the NHL level by now.
