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

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Kasi

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.

Trading too many draft picks isn't the topic though.

Problem promoting young players was the topic. If they don't have the young players to promote they don't have a problem promoting them, the issue is not enough high quality players to be promoted.

[Bingo]

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?

Why don't you actually read what I said.

This isn't a Phillips topic, it's a "Do the Flames have a problem promoting prospects" topic.

I've said I'm good with Phillips getting a chance, but he needs a spot first and they haven't had any injuries lately.

But to suggest there's a problem or an issue, you need some history. Are there players that were held back in Calgary that have moved on to great heights in other organizations?

Valimaki ... well discussed. And?

[dobbles]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

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.

Doesn't any of that paragraph strike you as a bit backwards? To me, if I have a player that is the best at scoring goals and points in the main developmental league for the NHL, shouldn't I be trying to find a place for him on my roster? Obviously, there is merit to working on parts of your game. No one wants to follow the Edmonton model of top line scores 100 goals but gives up 110. But outside of extremes, shouldn't NHL teams and coaches be better at integrating guys that can score?

Some of this is probably a little OT, but to me its mainly this weird idea we have developed in hockey that you have a couple scoring lines but then a couple of lines that just play defense or grind against the other teams version of that line. It seems weird to me that as a hockey team you don't want to put out 4 lines that are all trying to score. Because of that, there are plenty of tweener players that could have an impact but don't get a chance because some giant slow as molasses player needs to glide around the ice for 8 minutes a game and 'intimidate' the other teams line of slow ogres that is also out there to intimidate. (ok, laying it on pretty thick there, but I was on a roll so I went for it!)

Again, I just think of this as any job, company, industry outside of sports. Say I hire a new guy on for a sales role. They are a decent salesman but really enjoy making up print materials to give to their prospects. Instead of saying 'stop making print materials and focus on your closing pitches' I am inclined to see if the employee wants to move into a marketing role or be the promo creator for the whole sales team. I want to maximize the employees I have, not force them to spend their career focusing on their weaknesses at the expense of their strengths.

(Also, I do know often the AHL scoring leaders are slightly older guys that are not NHL prospects. AHL scoring is obviously not everything. But when someone is excelling against their peers and being the best at what actually wins games, I think that says something.)

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by dobbles

Some of this is probably a little OT, but to me its mainly this weird idea we have developed in hockey that you have a couple scoring lines but then a couple of lines that just play defense or grind against the other teams version of that line. It seems weird to me that as a hockey team you don't want to put out 4 lines that are all trying to score. Because of that, there are plenty of tweener players that could have an impact but don't get a chance because some giant slow as molasses player needs to glide around the ice for 8 minutes a game and 'intimidate' the other teams line of slow ogres that is also out there to intimidate.

I think it made sense as recently as the mid-2000s because the talent pool just wasn't there (due to weaker scouting, development, and a less global game).

I also think it's fair that some players fall into the Linden Vey category of "not good enough offensively to beat NHL defenses, but also not good enough in other areas to make an impact any other way" but I think you have to get a sample size of evaluation in place. Early in Andrew Mangiapane's career people here on CP had made that assessment about him too.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by dobbles

Doesn't any of that paragraph strike you as a bit backwards? To me, if I have a player that is the best at scoring goals and points in the main developmental league for the NHL, shouldn't I be trying to find a place for him on my roster? Obviously, there is merit to working on parts of your game. No one wants to follow the Edmonton model of top line scores 100 goals but gives up 110. But outside of extremes, shouldn't NHL teams and coaches be better at integrating guys that can score?

Some of this is probably a little OT, but to me its mainly this weird idea we have developed in hockey that you have a couple scoring lines but then a couple of lines that just play defense or grind against the other teams version of that line. It seems weird to me that as a hockey team you don't want to put out 4 lines that are all trying to score. Because of that, there are plenty of tweener players that could have an impact but don't get a chance because some giant slow as molasses player needs to glide around the ice for 8 minutes a game and 'intimidate' the other teams line of slow ogres that is also out there to intimidate. (ok, laying it on pretty thick there, but I was on a roll so I went for it!)

Again, I just think of this as any job, company, industry outside of sports. Say I hire a new guy on for a sales role. They are a decent salesman but really enjoy making up print materials to give to their prospects. Instead of saying 'stop making print materials and focus on your closing pitches' I am inclined to see if the employee wants to move into a marketing role or be the promo creator for the whole sales team. I want to maximize the employees I have, not force them to spend their career focusing on their weaknesses at the expense of their strengths.

(Also, I do know often the AHL scoring leaders are slightly older guys that are not NHL prospects. AHL scoring is obviously not everything. But when someone is excelling against their peers and being the best at what actually wins games, I think that says something.)

I'd assume that if Treliving and Sutter felt that Phillips would improve the team's offence from the top nine they have they would have already made the move.

They (rightly or wrongly) have determined (to this point) that his offence isn't translatable to the next level.

They're trying to win, they will make bad calls, but I don't think they're avoiding improving their team.

The issues with the four scoring lines ...

1) Size of the pie - only so many five on five minutes to go around. If your fourth line is suddenly somewhat prominent you have to give them more than 7 minutes and that takes away from the higher paid players on your roster.

2) Salary Cap - you can't afford 12 scoring hockey players on a roster. There isn't the financial space to do it.

So with that you need cheap players (I realize Lucic isn't cheap, that's a sunk cost on a Neal signing) and they can't play a lot so you don't want them to be prospects that will get stunted.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

I think it made sense as recently as the mid-2000s because the talent pool just wasn't there (due to weaker scouting, development, and a less global game).

I also think it's fair that some players fall into the Linden Vey category of "not good enough offensively to beat NHL defenses, but also not good enough in other areas to make an impact any other way" but I think you have to get a sample size of evaluation in place. Early in Andrew Mangiapane's career people here on CP had made that assessment about him too.

And I think Mangiapane is a good example. He's bigger, but not NHL sized, did well in the AHL, and was a 6th round pick.

He got the look after basically two full seasons in the AHL and did something with it.

Phillips is on year five now, so certainly behind Mangiapane ... but also through a strange covid window of less games played.

I think he deserves a look for sure. But I think they need a top nine injury or a Ruzicka face plant to make it happen.

[TheScorpion]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

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.

No, actually. The numbers I listed specifically pertain to his offensive game, which is the best part of what he does. He's never going to be a defensively impactful player. But there's simply no evidence to suggest that the Flames struggled defensively to an extent out of the ordinary with Phillips on the ice in the pre-sesaon.

In fact, they outshot their opponents by a wide margin. Are shots "fancy stats"?

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.

With respect, shut up. You're such a hypocrite.

Fixating on certain players ... yeah, I liked a big player who wasn't very good when I was 14. Who gives a ####.

As for now, yeah, I like players who might be good and don't like players who pretty much everyone knows are bad. Sue me.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by dobbles

Doesn't any of that paragraph strike you as a bit backwards? To me, if I have a player that is the best at scoring goals and points in the main developmental league for the NHL, shouldn't I be trying to find a place for him on my roster? Obviously, there is merit to working on parts of your game. No one wants to follow the Edmonton model of top line scores 100 goals but gives up 110. But outside of extremes, shouldn't NHL teams and coaches be better at integrating guys that can score?

It isn't backwards. Most teams, the exception being the Oilers, want their players to be able to play on both sides of the puck. You don't have to be a Selke nominee, but as you mentioned, you can't be a detriment when you're on the ice. If you can't play somewhat of a structured game and can't control gaps, it's unlikely you're going to end up in the NHL as a career player. This is exactly why Phillips didn't make the team and probably isn't on the team's radar. Even in his latest camp he was positionally poor in the defensive end and displayed no gap control. That's the problem with small players, they struggle to maintain gap control so they then have to rely on superior positional awareness to make up for it. When they have poor positional awareness, they are a bit of a lost cause.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Bingo

And I think Mangiapane is a good example. He's bigger, but not NHL sized, did well in the AHL, and was a 6th round pick.



He got the look after basically two full seasons in the AHL and did something with it.



Phillips is on year five now, so certainly behind Mangiapane ... but also through a strange covid window of less games played.



I think he deserves a look for sure. But I think they need a top nine injury or a Ruzicka face plant to make it happen.

That is not quite the whole story, though. Mangiapane got 10 or 12 games the season before he finally broke in, and he was completely invisible. I and others were convinced after that season that he was probably never going to be a NHL player.

I have learned since the a couple of things: for one thing, scoring in the AHL seldom translates right away to the NHL, and for some players it can take more than one or two cracks to finally make it.


Sent from my SM-G986W using Tapatalk

[CSharp]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I'd assume that if Treliving and Sutter felt that Phillips would improve the team's offence from the top nine they have they would have already made the move.

They (rightly or wrongly) have determined (to this point) that his offence isn't translatable to the next level.

They're trying to win, they will make bad calls, but I don't think they're avoiding improving their team.

The issues with the four scoring lines ...

1) Size of the pie - only so many five on five minutes to go around. If your fourth line is suddenly somewhat prominent you have to give them more than 7 minutes and that takes away from the higher paid players on your roster.

2) Salary Cap - you can't afford 12 scoring hockey players on a roster. There isn't the financial space to do it.

So with that you need cheap players (I realize Lucic isn't cheap, that's a sunk cost on a Neal signing) and they can't play a lot so you don't want them to be prospects that will get stunted.

Not just that, fourth liners aren't really there to score goals. Scoring is actually secondary to what their roles are - which is more of checking and pounding out the other team to wear them down. Scoring, if it comes from 4th line, is a bonus. For teams that has won championships, it's not based on 4 skilled lines. Sutter has shown that with the Kings going up against a very talented Sharks team that was on the brink of a full sweep. The Kings pounded out the Sharks in 4 straight games after that. You see similar thing happening with the Bruins against the Canucks in the finals. Foot soldiers that have won championships are invaluable, especially for what they're paid vs top scoring players. This is why Sutter will keep guys like Lewis, Ritchie, and Lucic even if they don't score. Place a guy like Phillips in the 4th line, maybe it'll work out or maybe not. High chance that a small player on a checking line will not work effectively. Sutter's not going to mess around trying to get a young player hurt in addition to inconsistent efforts. I think Conroy said it best when he came back to the Flames the second time and got demoted to 3 and 4th lines and someone asked about his production. He just said that you're not there to score goals when you're in the bottom 6. That was not his role as opposed to the top 6.

Like what others have said, the opportunities come during training camp or when a top 9 forward or top 6 dman is injured. The player has to make the best of those opportunities when he gets the chance.