K-9 Posted February 15, 2014 Report Posted February 15, 2014 You should be allowed to have 1 under 20 junior eligible player in the AHL. There should be an exception. I'd certainly welcome that as a start but kids still shouldn't be limited by a quota. If their talent has outgrown their current level of competition, they should have further developmental options available. GO SABRES!!!
Eleven Posted February 15, 2014 Report Posted February 15, 2014 Somebody claimed it was unfair to the young players, so I gave the other side. The real reason for the rule has nothing to do with being "fair" to either side. The point of the rule is to keep the CHL conpetitive... And active. There is no "expense" to the AHL. They do and will do just fine with the rule in place. The CHL wouldn't survive without the rule. And NHL teams would suffer without a lot of the CHL players sticking around in the CHL. It's an environment where young draft prospects can compete against superior players in experience and skill, and show what they have. Take that away and scouting changes completely. Rochester folks: Would you be more likely to go to more games if Sabres prospects were there instead of has beens and never-will-bes? Not even kind of true. The CHL is a breeding ground. These guys are playing for futures in the NHL. There are some that aren't going to make the NHL and know that, but they're still working against a lot of players who will someday play and shine in the NHL. There are over 1200 players in the CHL. There are a LOT who are not going to make the NHL. The CHL will continue to exist without the rule.
Hoss Posted February 15, 2014 Report Posted February 15, 2014 The AHL might be a better place for some, but there's also some that would be better served by staying in the CHL longer, too. Development doesn't just stop because they're already "too talented" for the CHL. There are few players who have little to nothing to gain from staying in the CHL.
Eleven Posted February 15, 2014 Report Posted February 15, 2014 The AHL might be a better place for some, but there's also some that would be better served by staying in the CHL longer, too. Development doesn't just stop because they're already "too talented" for the CHL. There are few players who have little to nothing to gain from staying in the CHL. This is correct, and those players should stay there. I want Justin Bailey in Kitchener, not Rochester.
Hoss Posted February 15, 2014 Report Posted February 15, 2014 There are over 1200 players in the CHL. There are a LOT who are not going to make the NHL. The CHL will continue to exist without the rule. But it wouldn't exist as it is. The NHL NEEDS it to exist as it is. If you don't have many legitimate NHL prospects in it then the competition level would take a nosedive. Then you would have no development coming out of the CHL.
Eleven Posted February 15, 2014 Report Posted February 15, 2014 But it wouldn't exist as it is. The NHL NEEDS it to exist as it is. If you don't have many legitimate NHL prospects in it then the competition level would take a nosedive. Then you would have no development coming out of the CHL. Sure you would. Just one year earlier for the real stars.
Hoss Posted February 15, 2014 Report Posted February 15, 2014 (edited) Sure you would. Just one year earlier for the real stars. I think a fair middle ground is one or two exceptions allowed per team per year. Most franchises likely wouldn't have more than one or two that would be better served in the AHL, anyways. The only definite for Buffalo is Grigorenko. I don't think Baptiste should be anywhere but Sudbury next year. Let him take his time since this is his first big time year. Next year Grigs will be eligible anyways, so Zadorov would be the one if they could only take one. Edited February 15, 2014 by Tankalicious
Darryl Shannon's +/- Posted February 15, 2014 Report Posted February 15, 2014 But it wouldn't exist as it is. The NHL NEEDS it to exist as it is. If you don't have many legitimate NHL prospects in it then the competition level would take a nosedive. Then you would have no development coming out of the CHL. College basketball hasn't fallen apart with players being allowed to bolt after one year and in the past when they didn't have to at all. I assume the only reason these players (like Grigorenko) aren't allowed to play in the NHL is because when they are in juniors, they aren't technically part of the union? It seems like protecting jobs for vets on the way out to maximize paychecks.
LGR4GM Posted February 15, 2014 Report Posted February 15, 2014 I think a fair middle ground is one or two exceptions allowed per team per year. Most franchises likely wouldn't have more than one or two that would be better served in the AHL, anyways. The only definite for Buffalo is Grigorenko. I don't think Baptiste should be anywhere but Sudbury next year. Let him take his time since this is his first big time year. Next year Grigs will be eligible anyways, so Zadorov would be the one if they could only take one. I think Zadorov is a Sabre next year. That seems to be the plan IMPO and I think he will be just fine.
Hoss Posted February 15, 2014 Report Posted February 15, 2014 I think Zadorov is a Sabre next year. That seems to be the plan IMPO and I think he will be just fine. I think he'd be in Rochester if he were eligible. He looked good in his short stint here, but there's no guarantee he's able to sustain that. I'd rather have him in Rochester.
respk Posted February 15, 2014 Report Posted February 15, 2014 Zadorov should not be in the NHL next year. The Sabres will be bad again. Maybe worse than this year. All of the youngsters should be in either the AHL or in juniors and none of them should be moved up to the Sabres. Keep them out of that type of situation. Let them play all situations and get lots of ice time. And those that are in Rochester maybe even compete for a Calder cup. The Sabres tank one more season, get #1 or #2 in the draft and then start the rebuild at the NHL level. Populate the Sabres with 3rd and 4th line players and maybe some of the older AHLers and tank one more time. I think Zadorov is a Sabre next year. That seems to be the plan IMPO and I think he will be just fine.
inkman Posted February 16, 2014 Report Posted February 16, 2014 Rochester folks: Would you be more likely to go to more games if Sabres prospects were there instead of has beens and never-will-bes? Depends on which Amerks fans you are talking to. The fans who are solely Amerks fans with no cares about the Sabres will wholeheartedly want vets instead of kids manning the fort. Fans like me who are close to 50/50 in their allegiance probably would like to see the kids because of the continuity of watching players move through the system.
Hoss Posted February 16, 2014 Report Posted February 16, 2014 Rochester folks: Would you be more likely to go to more games if Sabres prospects were there instead of has beens and never-will-bes? Well you'd only be cutting out one guy, so it wouldn't make much of a difference.
Eleven Posted February 16, 2014 Report Posted February 16, 2014 (edited) Well you'd only be cutting out one guy, so it wouldn't make much of a difference. Then what's your point? That's going to kill the CHL? Kill vets' careers? Depends on which Amerks fans you are talking to. The fans who are solely Amerks fans with no cares about the Sabres will wholeheartedly want vets instead of kids manning the fort. Fans like me who are close to 50/50 in their allegiance probably would like to see the kids because of the continuity of watching players move through the system. Now this, this is a real answer. Edited February 16, 2014 by Eleven
Taro T Posted February 16, 2014 Report Posted February 16, 2014 I'd certainly welcome that as a start but kids still shouldn't be limited by a quota. If their talent has outgrown their current level of competition, they should have further developmental options available. GO SABRES!!! IF the people making the decisions about where the kids should play had the kids best interests as the driving force for the decision, I might agree. We all know the decision makers have their OWN best interests in mind. If screwing up a kid's development can save a GM's job for another year, it's extremely likely the kid's development gets screwed up. For every 1 Grigorenko that gets screwed by the rule, there's probably 30+ kids that benefit.
K-9 Posted February 16, 2014 Report Posted February 16, 2014 IF the people making the decisions about where the kids should play had the kids best interests as the driving force for the decision, I might agree. We all know the decision makers have their OWN best interests in mind. If screwing up a kid's development can save a GM's job for another year, it's extremely likely the kid's development gets screwed up. For every 1 Grigorenko that gets screwed by the rule, there's probably 30+ kids that benefit. Nobody should get screwed. Especially when there's no reason for anyone to get screwed. GO SABRES!!!
Taro T Posted February 16, 2014 Report Posted February 16, 2014 Nobody should get screwed. Especially when there's no reason for anyone to get screwed. GO SABRES!!! Agree with your 1st statement in theory. Reality unfortunately is that GM's and coaches that are on a very short leash will push kids above the level they should be at to save their own bacon. Even if they aren't on a real short leash, they still want to win NOW & don't know that today's team's star player won't be concussed into retirement tomorrow. The rule (and the 9 game NHL tryout as well) is there for similar reasons to the salary cap. It forces GM's to forego some of the 'win now' goal for another conflicting goal - in this case, long term player development.
Eleven Posted February 16, 2014 Report Posted February 16, 2014 Agree with your 1st statement in theory. Reality unfortunately is that GM's and coaches that are on a very short leash will push kids above the level they should be at to save their own bacon. Even if they aren't on a real short leash, they still want to win NOW & don't know that today's team's star player won't be concussed into retirement tomorrow. The rule (and the 9 game NHL tryout as well) is there for similar reasons to the salary cap. It forces GM's to forego some of the 'win now' goal for another conflicting goal - in this case, long term player development. But we're talking about putting the kids who are ready into the AHL, not the NHL (they already can go into the NHL). How does that help "win now?"
Taro T Posted February 16, 2014 Report Posted February 16, 2014 But we're talking about putting the kids who are ready into the AHL, not the NHL (they already can go into the NHL). How does that help "win now?" They can only go into the NHL for 9 games without burning a year of their entry level deal. If teams could have their 1st few picks in the A 'so they can compete against men' to see how they'll do, a lot of teams would. Pushing most of those kids up to the A too soon to potentially get them to the NHL faster doesn't benefit the majority of the kids, but it might benefit a GM if he lucks out and gets a top 6 guy into the NHL at 20 rather than 22. The heck with the guys that could have become top 6/9 at 23 or 24 but now haven't gotten to develop properly. Those kids are somebody else's problem. You say these kids 'are ready' for the A, but if the rule were changed, you'd get a lot of kids that AREN'T ready pushed up. And that will hurt their progression/development. We're seeing more college kids make the NHL than ever before; some of that is due to the proliferation of D1 schools, but another part of it is that's a great development model. Kids get to play against kids until they're 22. They don't compete against full grown men and they don't play 70+ games against grown men. (And those that don't make it will have an education and can have a career in some other field.) I'm fine with having an appeal process for the handful of kids like Grigorenko that are too good for junior but not ready for the show. But if Grigorenko weren't a Sabre we likely wouldn't be having this discussion. There are VERY few kids in his situation.
darksabre Posted February 16, 2014 Report Posted February 16, 2014 Depends on which Amerks fans you are talking to. The fans who are solely Amerks fans with no cares about the Sabres will wholeheartedly want vets instead of kids manning the fort. Fans like me who are close to 50/50 in their allegiance probably would like to see the kids because of the continuity of watching players move through the system. This. I'm not die hard Amerks but if guys like Zadorov and Baptiste were playing there I'd be a lot more interested in the games.
K-9 Posted February 16, 2014 Report Posted February 16, 2014 They can only go into the NHL for 9 games without burning a year of their entry level deal. If teams could have their 1st few picks in the A 'so they can compete against men' to see how they'll do, a lot of teams would. Pushing most of those kids up to the A too soon to potentially get them to the NHL faster doesn't benefit the majority of the kids, but it might benefit a GM if he lucks out and gets a top 6 guy into the NHL at 20 rather than 22. The heck with the guys that could have become top 6/9 at 23 or 24 but now haven't gotten to develop properly. Those kids are somebody else's problem. You say these kids 'are ready' for the A, but if the rule were changed, you'd get a lot of kids that AREN'T ready pushed up. And that will hurt their progression/development. We're seeing more college kids make the NHL than ever before; some of that is due to the proliferation of D1 schools, but another part of it is that's a great development model. Kids get to play against kids until they're 22. They don't compete against full grown men and they don't play 70+ games against grown men. (And those that don't make it will have an education and can have a career in some other field.) I'm fine with having an appeal process for the handful of kids like Grigorenko that are too good for junior but not ready for the show. But if Grigorenko weren't a Sabre we likely wouldn't be having this discussion. There are VERY few kids in his situation. That's the truth. It's also beside the point. Every available developmental league should be made available to every prospect at any given time. Prospects will sink or swim as their talents allow. Why this is a rule for players in one junior league and not others just underscores the absurdity of it. GO SABRES!!!
Taro T Posted February 16, 2014 Report Posted February 16, 2014 (edited) That's the truth. It's also beside the point. Every available developmental league should be made available to every prospect at any given time. Prospects will sink or swim as their talents allow. Why this is a rule for players in one junior league and not others just underscores the absurdity of it. GO SABRES!!! Though I again agree w/ you in theory, the reality is that's not a option when you are dealing with leagues in multiple countries (and multiple labor laws), some of which have amateurs, some have pros, some amateurs receive small stipends, and some of the pros are unionized. The work / eligibility rules for ALL are unique to each league, and due to an attempt to keep competive balance within a league must be unique to that league's situation. Edited February 16, 2014 by Taro T
K-9 Posted February 16, 2014 Report Posted February 16, 2014 Though I again agree w/ you in theory, the reality is that's not a option when you are dealing with leagues in multiple countries (and multiple labor laws), some of which have amateurs, some have pros, some amateurs receive small stipends, and some of the pros are unionized. The work / eligibility rules for ALL are unique to each league, and due to an attempt to keep competive balance within a league must be unique to that league's situation. Indeed, it's the reality. That's what I'm suggesting needs to be changed. I don't buy the competitive balance argument that some leagues may profer. As stated previously, we're talking a very finite number of players here to begin with. If losing a few Grigorenkos to the the AHL alters the balance of any league, that league has far bigger issues than allowing teens to play in the AHL. GO SABRES!!!
26CornerBlitz Posted February 16, 2014 Report Posted February 16, 2014 @SabresProspects Nick Baptiste notches his 33rd goal of the year right off the bat in the second period. Sudbury trails Niagara 2-1. @SabresProspects Baptiste's marker gives him 13+10 in 17 games since Jan. 1.
LGR4GM Posted February 16, 2014 Report Posted February 16, 2014 @SabresProspects Nick Baptiste notches his 33rd goal of the year right off the bat in the second period. Sudbury trails Niagara 2-1. @SabresProspects Baptiste's marker gives him 13+10 in 17 games since Jan. 1. Another year in the OHL. 2 years in the AHL with an occasional call up in year 2. Baptiste could be a very good RW3 or solid RW2. Much like many of our other prospects, Hurley, Bailey, Possler, Armia... we should take our time with some of these guys. Then you have Zadorov who is going to be ready next year.
Recommended Posts