Matthew Tkachuk and the 9 games

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Show me a player that's ever had a better development curve because he got sent down.

...right, you can't, because there is no constant to measure against. There's just fact. Learning against better competition improves the learning curve. If you're playing in a lower league, you'll top out. Tkachuk may have learned everything he can in junior, he definitely hasn't in the NHL. They're different styles of game. Which logically sounds like a better option to learn to play in the NHL?

Insulting posts isn't going to convince anyone of anything. Let's stick to talking about the situation, ok?

Umm go take a look at your first post and think for a second about where the insulting started. No good discussions ever come from calling someone's opinion stupid. Tkachuk has only played one year of junior on an all star line. I don't think he's learned everything. In fact it's pretty clear from his play at times he hasn't.

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I'm looking at things from a GM perspective as for Backlund to sign say another 3 year deal Treliving has to look at ability to fit him in each year over that three year period. Moving Tkachuk's ELC expiry one year back could be the difference depending on the expiring deals in that year of other players.

From an expiring contract perspective you likely prefer to burn Tkachuck this year. At this point Wideman, Engelland, Smid clear out 11.75 in space and Bennett needs a big raise. Next year Stajan, Bouma, and Backlund expire and Raymonds bogey clears with Backlund looking for more money but potentially moving out due to age. At this point there isn't anyone significant needing new money in 3 years. So if you can ladder your new deals so that its one per year. Otherwise you deal withBrodie and Tkachuck in the same summer when you clear Frolik and Brouwer.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Umm go take a look at your first post and think for a second about where the insulting started. No good discussions ever come from calling someone's opinion stupid. Tkachuk has only played one year of junior on an all star line. I don't think he's learned everything. In fact it's pretty clear from his play at times he hasn't.

Sorry I think your reasons are a little cliché. I've just yet to see a good reason other than basic hockey platitudes. The evidence in his play doesn't support sending him down and I don't know of any historically similar situations where keeping this kind of player up hurt the team.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

From an expiring contract perspective you likely prefer to burn Tkachuck this year. At this point Wideman, Engelland, Smid clear out 11.75 in space and Bennett needs a big raise. Next year Stajan, Bouma, and Backlund expire and Raymonds bogey clears with Backlund looking for more money but potentially moving out due to age. At this point there isn't anyone significant needing new money in 3 years. So if you can ladder your new deals so that its one per year. Otherwise you deal withBrodie and Tkachuck in the same summer when you clear Frolik and Brouwer.

Assuming no trades or free agent signings happen in the next three years which is why I think that fans simply can't understand how many things the GM need to look at and calculate. I don't even think the ELC thing is the main reason for sending him down. It plays a role for sure but I just think it will be better for his development.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Sorry I think your reasons are a little cliché. I've just yet to see a good reason other than basic hockey platitudes. The evidence in his play doesn't support sending him down and I don't know of any historically similar situations where keeping this kind of player up hurt the team.

I think you hit the nail on the head as there really isn't any way to ever determine what is the right thing to do. Joe Thornton turned out just fine despite playing his rookie year on the fourth line of Boston getting 8 minutes a game. And there is no way to quantifiably say if he would be better or worse because of it. Just like there really isn't any way to blame rushing players on "rushing" them. It could be they just never had the ability to make the jump in the first place and would have spent their career in the AHL anyways.

It's great debate but it is the hardest part I think for GMs, there is no way to ever know if you made the right decision.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by belsarius

I think you hit the nail on the head as there really isn't any way to ever determine what is the right thing to do. Joe Thornton turned out just fine despite playing his rookie year on the fourth line of Boston getting 8 minutes a game. And there is no way to quantifiably say if he would be better or worse because of it. Just like there really isn't any way to blame rushing players on "rushing" them. It could be they just never had the ability to make the jump in the first place and would have spent their career in the AHL anyways.



It's great debate but it is the hardest part I think for GMs, there is no way to ever know if you made the right decision.

Exactly.

That's why it's my opinion that if the player can play, you let them play. I wouldn't have a problem if Tkachuk looked too slow, too weak, and always behind the play, but he's not. If you don't think he's NHL ready, then unfortunately we have 3-4 veteran guys who also aren't, I guess.

You can't teach a player better than you can in the NHL. He's not going down to London and sitting after a bad penalty, or watching games from above to see how things develop. These are teaching moments, and their incredibly valuable. The sooner he learns to play the NHL game, the sooner the Flames are a step closer to contending.

[TheoFleury]

If he's going to stay up, he needs more than 10 minutes a night. If GG can't/won't give that to him, regardless of where he's at in his value to the team, then he needs to be sent down. If GG can't trust him with around the same minutes Monahan and Bennett were given in their rookie years, then he's not ready to be here and there is no shame in that.

[IgiTang]

Jason Spezza, Mark Scheiffle, Mitch Marner.. were all returned to Jr. and it served them well. I'm sure there are tons more that it benefitted.

I see the argument going both ways in terms of development. Going back to London won't hurt Matthew.

It's really tough, it appears he's gelled with the guys.. but that spot could be really useful for cycling some deserving players from the farm.

Mangiapane, Klimchuk, Shinkaruk, Poirier, and Janko all deserve a cup of coffee but Tkachuck isn't in the way of that.

Tough tough choice...

[Jason14h]

Are we a better team with him in the lineup then the alternatives ? If so keep him up . The point is to win hockey games

[MarkGio]

Send him down. I never thought playoffs were a realistic outcome to begin with and I'm not sure anything has changed, given the start to the season. Give his spot to Jankowski and let both players develop well. Maybe if were lucky, both guys become key guys in the future and we can roll next year with another top pick, some cap flexibility, some well developed players, and a legit chance to go deep in the playoffs

[IgiTang]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Are we a better team with him in the lineup then the alternatives ? If so keep him up . The point is to win hockey games

I don't think we are better or worse with him in the lineup. I think we have some guys that can come in and perhaps put up a bit more points and have a bit more composure. I don't think we have anyone that can be as aggressive though.

That is where the problem exists.

[polak]

I just don't see what a year in Junior will help him with? Pushing around kids smaller than him is going to get him more ready for the NHL?

Let him stay, stop benching him (theres other players that are playing worse than him) and let him grow into his game in the big leagues, not against kids where he's only going to develop bad habits that get him comfortable doing things that don't work in the NHL like we saw with Sam Bennett before his recent resurgence.

Plus he's been fine. No one can say hes hurting the team at all and we have no better alternatives.

[smiggy77]

Originally Posted by shotinthebacklund

This forum can be so bipolar. Last week he was too good to send down and this week after sitting for 2 games he cant cut it and should go down.

I don't know for sure if he should go down or stay up but will be more than okay with either choice. I think his development can be increased from both

The Gulutzan issues were bipolar.

This thread is a good one assessing a player based on a timelined decision (sending down or keeping up). If this thread was started during the preseason, I'd agree its a bit much but now that we're approaching the 9 games, nothing wrong with discussing it and presenting different views.

[TheScorpion]

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

[TheoFleury]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Are we a better team with him in the lineup then the alternatives ? If so keep him up . The point is to win hockey games

He doesn't make that much of a difference at this point, what is most important is that he plays as much as possible. Playing on the 3rd/4th line all year, getting scratched sometimes and averaging about 12 mins a night is not good for his development IMO. That being said, if he improves to the point where he can get those minutes, then it is a good call to keep him up. But how long do you wait? Like was mentioned previously, we can't afford to burn an RFA season on 41 games that could easily be replaced by a farm hand.

[1qqaaz]

Originally Posted by IgiTang

Jason Spezza, Mark Scheiffle, Mitch Marner.. were all returned to Jr. and it served them well. I'm sure there are tons more that it benefitted.

I see the argument going both ways in terms of development. Going back to London won't hurt Matthew.

It's really tough, it appears he's gelled with the guys.. but that spot could be really useful for cycling some deserving players from the farm.

Mangiapane, Klimchuk, Shinkaruk, Poirier, and Janko all deserve a cup of coffee but Tkachuck isn't in the way of that.

Tough tough choice...

I think there are more examples of players who were sent down and did not benefit.

Ryan Strome, Michael Dal Colle, Reinhart, Hayden Fleury, Drouin, Nurse, Dumba, Pouliot, even Huberdeau.

Most of these guys were very high picks, yet did not develop into elite talents.

[thymebalm]

Each case is individual. You can't point to past players as proof because they are human beings, not numbers. So it's all speculative.

If a player has the raw skill, it's all about how to refine it. Some guys just need to grow up a little more with their junior teams, some guys needs the positive influence of professionals to keep them away from bad habits, some guys needs nutrition, some guys need ice time.

I'd say that playing in the NHL has helped his maturity which is great because he's a bit of a punk. But he's not going to be called upon in high pressure moments to score the big goal if he stays on this team. And I think that's an edge you want to sharpen on a player like Tkachuck. In the future you want him to be the player you look to when you need a goal, and there are too many of those types of players ahead of him.

Just my thoughts on it. He's probably too good of a prospect to ruin either way you go, and whether it has any formidable change in how he'll play as a pro we'll never know. Such is hockey fandom.

[smiggy77]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Exactly.

That's why it's my opinion that if the player can play, you let them play. I wouldn't have a problem if Tkachuk looked too slow, too weak, and always behind the play, but he's not. If you don't think he's NHL ready, then unfortunately we have 3-4 veteran guys who also aren't, I guess.

You can't teach a player better than you can in the NHL. He's not going down to London and sitting after a bad penalty, or watching games from above to see how things develop. These are teaching moments, and their incredibly valuable. The sooner he learns to play the NHL game, the sooner the Flames are a step closer to contending.

Yeah and I think that is really what the turning point is when a GM has to make that decision about keeping a player or sending him back to Junior. Are there holes in his physical abilities to the game? Ie. Does he need more development to his skating, speed, strength, shot, puck control, offensive awareness, defensive awareness, etc.?

I think a common assessment is that he definitely has the speed, strength, shot, really isn't a liability out there and doesn't look extremely out of place. The main hole right now from what I've observed is his decision making process. They just aren't quick enough and some decisions will lead to some bad penalties that could be avoided.

With that though, I do think that the best place to learn that is with the speed of the NHL, he won't be able to get that speed in Junior, it'll be too slow of a league to develop better.

[cofias]

https://twitter.com/Fan960Wills/stat...41953547907072

Derek Wills
‏@Fan960Wills
#Flames Glen Gulutzan just said that since game one, 18-year-old Matthew Tkachuk has managed the puck as well as any player on the roster.

Positive sign for Matt?

[locsofblu]

He's done learning at the junior level. I 'd keep him up with the pros.