Discussion: Do the Flames have a problem promoting young players?

[Ped]

Originally Posted by VilleN

Other than Phillips I don't see any issues with how the Flames develop young players. Ruzicka has been developed by the team and is blossoming. Valimaki had a higher salary and looked like dog #### in the AHL, and during training camp - he's responsible for not getting a 'fair chance' not the Flames. Over the last 10 years or so we have developed a lot of drafted players: Gaudreau, Mangiapane, Dube, Andersson, Kylington, etc. Everyone complains about player x not getting a shot until they do. Tons of posters were bitching about Kylington not getting a fair chance, he eventually did and was successful. Same with Ruzicka. Does the organization not get credit for bringing these players along properly and giving them a shot once they felt they were ready? Maybe they see something in Phillips game that they don't like and aren't prepared to risk putting him in the lineup while we're battling for a playoff position. I imagine Arizona would give him a chance, because of course they would. They are trying to lose and can afford to develop him in the NHL. I doubt many competing teams would be throwing prospects into meaningful games to develop them. Especially a player like Phillips who is tiny, and has not shown all that well in preseason auditions.

Not to pick on your post specifically, but this is my issue with development. You consider Ruzicka a plus because the Flames develop him, but Valimaki's failures on him and not the Flames.


Shouldn't it be one or the other?


I think development is kind of a catchall term that most people (including myself) don't really understand other than to point and say "good" or "bad." In reality, I suspect that most of development falls on the player - are they willing to put the work in to adapt their game if they have to? Are they even able to?


I mean, you look at Crosby who was famous for working on something until he mastered it and then moving on. But the Flames, as any team, presumably try to work with each prospect and work on their weaknesses.


Sometimes they can. Sometimes they can't. Sometimes they're just not willing to. I think how we should look at it is not so much development, but identifying a young player's weakness and if they can be fixed.


But I really think whether or not they can depend more on the player than the team. Of course, teams can royally screw up progress, but unless they're consistent at it, it's hard to point at the Flames and say what did they do right with Ruzicka and what did they do wrong with Valimaki.

[Bingo]

I don't blame Valimaki.

I blame two major injuries, then a covid shut down, then a team that had a lot of depth. Not a lot of wiggle room in that to recover after so much lost time.

Only a thin team could take that chance. Happens.

But with any prospect we will never know. There aren't perfect twins born; one given an opportunity before the other one so we can watch it for a conclusion.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

And many other things could happen to jeopardize guaranteed earnings

It’s kind of silly to fault a player for signing a contract barely above minimum NHL wage and well below average

His cap hit is almost twice the league minimum. When talking about a player trying to break on to the team as a bottom roster player, that additional cap hit is significant enough to force a decision against them.

[VilleN]

Originally Posted by Ped

Not to pick on your post specifically, but this is my issue with development. You consider Ruzicka a plus because the Flames develop him, but Valimaki's failures on him and not the Flames.


Shouldn't it be one or the other?


I think development is kind of a catchall term that most people (including myself) don't really understand other than to point and say "good" or "bad." In reality, I suspect that most of development falls on the player - are they willing to put the work in to adapt their game if they have to? Are they even able to?


I mean, you look at Crosby who was famous for working on something until he mastered it and then moving on. But the Flames, as any team, presumably try to work with each prospect and work on their weaknesses.


Sometimes they can. Sometimes they can't. Sometimes they're just not willing to. I think how we should look at it is not so much development, but identifying a young player's weakness and if they can be fixed.


But I really think whether or not they can depend more on the player than the team. Of course, teams can royally screw up progress, but unless they're consistent at it, it's hard to point at the Flames and say what did they do right with Ruzicka and what did they do wrong with Valimaki.

I don't disagree necessarily. However, Ruzicka looked good in the AHL, he looked pretty good in preseason and his NHL call ups. Valimaki looked amazing at first, then injuries, and lost development time threw him off course I think. My point really is that I don't think the Flames are doing anything egregiously wrong with their young prospects. I think there are plenty of examples of giving prospects an opportunity. So when they aren't giving a player an opportunity, I assume it isn't random, or personal - but rather they see something that we as fans either can't see or don't have access to.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by VilleN

I don't disagree necessarily. However, Ruzicka looked good in the AHL, he looked pretty good in preseason and his NHL call ups. Valimaki looked amazing at first, then injuries, and lost development time threw him off course I think. My point really is that I don't think the Flames are doing anything egregiously wrong with their young prospects. I think there are plenty of examples of giving prospects an opportunity. So when they aren't giving a player an opportunity, I assume it isn't random, or personal - but rather they see something that we as fans either can't see or don't have access to.

Or they're wrong!

I don't think any subjective view of what a player can do is infallible. They have made mistakes, they will make mistakes. They'll get some right.

But I'm not ready to assume they have sort of mantra that is different than the rest of the league targeting young players despite that clearly not being in their best interests.

[Ped]

Even games played isn't a terribly useful metric. Deeper teams won't play younger players as much unless their force their hand. Look at Arizona last year. J.J. Moser, Dysin Mayo, Kyle Capobianco, Vladislav Kolyachonok, and Cam Dineen combined for over 200 games.


Do they get nearly that many in say, Tampa? Calgary? Boston? You look at that and say wow, they had all these young guys playing, they must be doing something right, but it doesn't mean that at all.

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

yes . they do

they opt for the vets to fill out the roster too often

this team would be better served by having one vacancy for a promotion every season

teams that stay competitive long term continually are feeding their rosters with youth

waiting 2-3 seasons between promotions and running players up to their end of their rfa window is not a recipe for developmental success

farm players also tend to come cheaper than ufas

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by TrentCrimmIndependent

yes . they do

they opt for the vets too frequently

this team would be better served by having one vacancy for a promotion every season

teams that stay competitive long term continually are feeding their rosters with youth

waiting 2-3 seasons between promotions and running players up to their end of their rfa window is not a recipe for developmental success

farm players also tend to come cheaper than ufas

OK so you must have a list of players that were held back too long and have since moved on and had useful NHL careers elsewhere, right?

Without a list I think maybe they just haven't had the quality to promote.

[VilleN]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Or they're wrong!

I don't think any subjective view of what a player can do is infallible. They have made mistakes, they will make mistakes. They'll get some right.

But I'm not ready to assume they have sort of mantra that is different than the rest of the league targeting young players despite that clearly not being in their best interests.

I don't think what you bolded in my post is a matter of 'Or they are wrong', if they see something in a player that they don't like and don't give them an opportunity because of it, they of course might be wrong about it. I'm more trying to push back against the notion that the Flames are somehow inept at developing young players and to be honest, I doubt they are all that different from most teams that are at their point in the compete/contend/rebuild cycle.

[Fan in Exile]

Originally Posted by Buff

Valimaki also had plenty of opportunities and didn't earn his keep.

How does his play in the NHL as a Flame or this season stack up against Mackey's NHL career?

[Buff]

Originally Posted by dobbles

<snip>

One example from that era that feels similar to your Valimaki debate: Kyle Quincey. It was the fall of 2008 and Quincey had been a decently solid prospect for several years. He had followed the overseasoning strategy and was no longer waiver exempt. The Wings in their affinity for veteran players decided to waive Quincey so they could keep 871 year old Chris Chelios on the roster. Quincey goes to LA, gets some solid minutes and has a near 40 point season. Goes to Colorado and puts up a few decent seasons.

<snip>

Fixed your typo

[Kasi]

Originally Posted by Bingo

OK so you must have a list of players that were held back too long and have since moved on and had useful NHL careers elsewhere, right?

Without a list I think maybe they just haven't had the quality to promote.

Well if that’s the case it still ties into how they prioritize picking up rehab projects for picks. Pitlick, Lazar, Jarnkrok and so on. You make your farm worse when you trade picks for second rate players or marginal 13th forward types. And other explanation for farm quality isn’t good either if they just haven’t developed well from within. I agree with Trent that long term contenders develop from within and I don’t think the Flames have done well enough here.

[VilleN]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

We trade 3 players and suddenly the organization is atrocious and drafting and development? I argue the complete opposite. I think that the Flames have graduated more than their fair share of players from their drafting/development program. Better than most teams, especially when you factor-in things like pick# and total number of picks.



The sudden 'problem' is the fact that quite a lot of futures went out in trades over the last few years. Are the posters complaining about a lack of prospects pushing through now the same ones that complained - or at least 'raised issues' - about so many futures being traded?



So let's be honest here. This isn't about the Flames suddenly being lousy at development. This is just built-up angst over Phillips not being on the team already.


I think a prospect has 3 'windows of opportunity' to make the NHL.
1) Training camp - Phillips fell on his face there and laid a big fat egg
2) Injury time - Flames have been relatively healthy
3) End of season when the team is either way out of a spot, or very comfortable in one that allows them to rest players


At training camp, I thought Phillips looked terrible outside of a couple of plays. IIRC, he was constantly underwater too from an analytics perspective, no? Zary looked like a guy who was ready. Pettersen I thought looked pretty good until his injury (and I had written him off). I was all-aboard the Phillips train, but he basically went out and showed everyone that he is NOT NHL-ready. So now he has to wait.


Plenty of posters were hoping for Ruzicka to be sent down and assumed that he would pass through waivers. Now he looks like one of the more important players on the team, and is really growing into his role. I don't think that Ruzicka necessarily made the team in training camp, but it would be a completely idiotic idea to simply look at who is the best performers without looking at asset management. If that was the case, Ruzicka would maybe have been Oilers' property now or some other team, and we would all be riled-up about how Treliving is the worst GM in history again.


Phillips had his shot and he blew it. Now he is doing what he needs to do, and that's showing this organization that he deserves another one, and that his name should be at the top of the list for call-ups. However, I disagree that the Flames make room for him. There is a LONG list of players who excelled at the AHL level and did nothing in the NHL, and judging by Phillips' camps thus far, he may be one of those. He simply has to wait for the next opportunity, and I am sure that it will eventually come. What he does with it is up to him, and I really hope that he does well with it and forces the team to give him a permanent spot. Time will tell what happens.


I, however, completely disagree with the notion that the Flames haven't been a strong organization in terms of promoting players into the NHL. Ruzicka is basically a rookie this year after cutting his teeth last year. Valimaki had LOADS of opportunity and failed. Mackey has looked very pedestrian. Ruzicka is turning into a star. What's the problem? We trade 3 drafted/developed players, and suddenly we forget? No, this is all about Phillips. The organization has zero issues when it comes to promoting players. It somehow has a huge issue with Phillips and Phillips alone, and thus far, I really have to put the blame and responsibility on Phillips and Phillips alone.

Great post. Pretty hard to argue against this imo, you hit the nail on the head.

[TheScorpion]

Saying Phillips looked terrible in the pre-season doesn't hold much weight, IMO. It's a 17-minute sample going head-to-head against 200 AHL games.

It's also not backed up by the numbers, which were fine across the board. He actually ranked fifth among the 43 players who tried out for the team (one spot ahead of Kadri) with 1.28 individual expected goals per 60 at 5v5. The numbers suggest he was constantly creating chances and taking shots.

Saying he looked terrible in camp, to me, is an example of seeing what you want to see. But it's such a tiny sample that it's pretty much meaningless for evaluation purposes on either side, IMO. It's akin to going back to Penticton to say Pelletier has had a disappointing year. Forest for the trees.

[TheScorpion]

It all ties into a larger discussion about these assessment periods, though.

If training camp and Penticton were to be believed, Adam Klapka would be in the NHL (or close) and Sonny Milano wouldn't have a contract. Instead, Klapka might be in the ECHL by the end of the year and Milano is scoring at a 49-point pace.

The ongoing AHL season should inform your decisions way before a months-old training camp.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by TrentCrimmIndependent

yes . they do

they opt for the vets to fill out the roster too often

this team would be better served by having one vacancy for a promotion every season

teams that stay competitive long term continually are feeding their rosters with youth

waiting 2-3 seasons between promotions and running players up to their end of their rfa window is not a recipe for developmental success

farm players also tend to come cheaper than ufas

You’re deliberately trolling, right?

You sound like a kid who has learned big words but doesn’t know how they fit together.

[Jore]

Originally Posted by Bingo

OK so you must have a list of players that were held back too long and have since moved on and had useful NHL careers elsewhere, right?

Without a list I think maybe they just haven't had the quality to promote.

They are currently running the worst fourth line in the league at $7+ million AAV while continuing to bury their AHL scoring leading prospect and 2 other top 10 AHL scoring prospects. That doesn’t seem like a problem?

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Jore

They are currently running the worst fourth line in the league at $7+ million AAV while continuing to bury their AHL scoring leading prospect and 2 other top 10 AHL scoring prospects. That doesn’t seem like a problem?

It's a problem but what are you going to do about it? Fire the coach? He's not going anywhere nor is his veteran 4th line. I hate it just as much as anyone else but there's no point in continually complaining about something that's not going to change at least until the next head coach.

[1qqaaz]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

You’re deliberately trolling, right?

You sound like a kid who has learned big words but doesn’t know how they fit together.

Is this necessary?

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

Saying Phillips looked terrible in the pre-season doesn't hold much weight, IMO. It's a 17-minute sample going head-to-head against 200 AHL games.

Yet it is this evaluation process is the one that determines who makes the team. It is the same across every team in every professional league in sports.

It's also not backed up by the numbers, which were fine across the board. He actually ranked fifth among the 43 players who tried out for the team (one spot ahead of Kadri) with 1.28 individual expected goals per 60 at 5v5. The numbers suggest he was constantly creating chances and taking shots.

This is why fancy stats are bull####. Phillips was glaringly bad on the defensive side of the puck and stood out as being weak in his positioning and ability to pressure the puck. This is why he was cut early and didn't make it to the end of camp.

Saying he looked terrible in camp, to me, is an example of seeing what you want to see.

To you. When you get fixated on players, whether it be David Jones or Matthew Phillips, you only see one side of the player. You only see what you want to see, which is vastly different than what most other people see.

The ongoing AHL season should inform your decisions way before a months-old training camp.

The team is watching the on-going AHL season and doing continual evaluation. They understand what a player needs to do and needs to work on to have an impact in the NHL. It is different for every player and the role the player is likely to be cast in. This is the thing that you seem to struggle with. You think that because a guy is putting up a lot of points it is the ultimate path to the NHL. It isn't. When a player is sent to the minors they are told the things they have to work on and what the team wants to see from them. The team doesn't just blindly cut them and send them away to toil away without direction. The team gives them guidance and then watches them to see how they are developing and progressing toward the objectives laid out. A player you think has no chance, because he doesn't fill the net, may be right on target to fill a role the team feels he would be successful in. And yes, the Calgary Flames and Darryl Sutter have specific roles they cast players into and expect them to perform those roles. Every player in the AHL is aware of this and is working to get an opportunity to fit into one of those roles. The problem for Phillips is there may not be a role on the team where he is a fit.