We need to talk about Zach Benson making the team this year, 2023

[phil_soisson]

I think he could take Olofsson's spot right now with only upside and no downside

[bob_sauve28]

1 minute ago, phil_soisson said:

I think he could take Olofsson's spot right now with only upside and no downside

Down side is it hurts VO's trade value 

[LGR4GM]

Quote

“How would (Benson) stick around?” Granato said. “You look at young players and size and strength is an automatic. You can’t put a guy in the NHL no matter how talented he is if he can’t keep up with the size and strength of players in the NHL. (Benson) stripped and stole some pucks and forced some plays against guys that are 30 or 40 pounds heavier than him (against Washington). He pushed them back, forced them into bad ice and eventually there were turnovers. That was impressive. … That was something I never would have guessed a player would have done that quick.”

https://theathletic.com/4903739/2023/09/26/zach-benson-sabres-training-camp/?source=dailyemail&campaign=601983

[...]

51 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

The reasoning here seems a bit bizarre. I think people advocating for Benson to get a hard look as a rostered player this season are doing so because they think that gives the team the best chance to win. Which would be entertaining. And I don't think people are discounting concerns for the player's well-being either.

No.

"If the Sabres are serious about this being the year, then the best players make the team regardless of status. It’s really that simple, at least for me."

"The bold is short-sighted. If he makes the team better, that is the best reason, and should be the only reason that matters."

These are rather absolute statements that do not take into account this particular player's safety and fully emphasizes the team's benefit - which ultimately is merely entertainment.

And, FWIW, I am advocating he get a 9 game look.

 

Edited September 27, 2023 by ...
Found the other one I was looking for.

[Taro T]

3 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

https://theathletic.com/4903739/2023/09/26/zach-benson-sabres-training-camp/?source=dailyemail&campaign=601983

Which is why the plan definitely WAS to send him back to Juniors, but really not as certain that it still is the plan.  And another game or 2 like the ones we've seen so far and the plan has to change.

[French Collection]

I know this is a huge leap but watching his junior highlight videos and a few clips at the NHL development/prospect/preseason level, I see a lot of things in him I haven’t seen since Gretzky.

The IQ, knowing where to be and where the puck should be, seeing eye passes and stealing pucks from stronger guys.

I don’t expect him to be the GOAT but he has some great hockey sense and skill that doesn’t come around very often.

[phil_soisson]

4 minutes ago, bob_sauve28 said:

Down side is it hurts VO's trade value 

You're right, but in a year where Adams and Granato are proclaiming it's time to meet or exceed expectations, on-iice downside far outweighs off-ice expectations; the future is now.

[LGR4GM]

2 hours ago, ... said:

So you're saying that the team's potential benefit trumps player safety. Got it.

And my argument is not a small-player bias, it's a human development concern. Certainly parents of young males should understand this.

I used the Gerbe example only to point out what happens when a person gets crushed along the boards. Shall I find another, less distracting example?

Nathan Gerbe is 5'4".  You aren't using a real comparable and I can list players like say ... Jack Eichel who are 6'2" that have been injured and gotten surgery so I don't really see your point. Injury is a risk of hockey. 

[...]

2 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Nathan Gerbe is 5'4".  You aren't using a real comparable and I can list players like say ... Jack Eichel who are 6'2" that have been injured and gotten surgery so I don't really see your point. Injury is a risk of hockey. 

I think Eichel is a great example, especially since when he was drafted he seemed to have the body to enter the NHL. Look what happened to him.

[LGR4GM]

1 hour ago, ... said:

Come on, you are not typically obtuse. The only reason to make an argument for putting Benson on this year's roster is because the person making that argument wants to be entertained.

To be honest this is a really lazy counter argument. The reason we watch hockey at all is to be entertained. 

The argument to add Benson to the Sabres this season would be if he is good enough to positively contribute. If you want to extrapolate that out to "contribution = winning = entertaining" than I suppose you can but it is a really weak argument. The only reason we want Tage or Tuch on the roster is to be entertained too. The only reason we want Levi in goal is to be entertained. 

Just now, ... said:

I think Eichel is a great example, especially since when he was drafted he seemed to have the body to enter the NHL. Look what happened to him.

He got injured several years later on a strange hit when he was... 23?

[Marvin]

35 minutes ago, LETSTUCHINGO said:

I was in attendance last night, Benson stood out. Granted neither roster was filled with NHL players as it will be in the regular season, but he looked as comfortable out there as any on his line (our top line). He meshed well with TT and Skinner. His assist to Skinner was timely and spot on, although being slight of frame, he fought hard in the boards and wasn't physically taken off the puck. He has superior hands and displayed it throughout the game. He was an absolute pest and often extended plays with his puck handling ability. With Quinn out, I can see him making the team. Although I am a huge Kulich fan, Benson looked like the superior player hands down last night. If you didn't know he was a rookie or 18, you certainly wouldn't have known it by his play!

Welcome to the board!

[...]

Just now, LGR4GM said:

To be honest this is a really lazy counter argument. The reason we watch hockey at all is to be entertained. 

The argument to add Benson to the Sabres this season would be if he is good enough to positively contribute. If you want to extrapolate that out to "contribution = winning = entertaining" than I suppose you can but it is a really weak argument. The only reason we want Tage or Tuch on the roster is to be entertained too. The only reason we want Levi in goal is to be entertained. 

It's not lazy at all. What's lazy is countering it with a slippery slope retort.

[That Aud Smell]

27 minutes ago, Taro T said:

One more similarity between this team and the '05-'06 version.  (Thorburn got claimed by Atlanta IIRC (might've been Pittsburgh) and Pominville somehow cleared waivers fortunately.)

The greatest on-ice post-game interview of a Sabre that I ever saw was when a HNIC guy (I can picture him - don't recall his name (glasses, straight shooter, nice voice)) got Pominville after the series OT clincher against Ottawa, and brought up the fact that he'd effectively been waived earlier that year. And Pominville just reeled back in a sort of elated joy before answering.

[LGR4GM]

21 minutes ago, ... said:

If you're trying to win some sort of theoretical, existential debate on the topic. However, for reasonable people trying to grapple with a topic what you are proposing is a slippery slope.

I realize that at some point my argument becomes ridiculous. I see a threshold where the risk for injury to a player - in any sport - equalizes relatively. At that point, considering that a player has chosen to pursue a professional sport in the first place, I am happy to "let them play".

Personally, I do not believe Benson, and Bedard for that matter, have crossed that threshold. I think the adults in the room, so to speak, need to be the adults in the room.

Then you are advocating for the playing age in the NHL to be raised from 18 to say 20? That is really what you are doing. 

[LETSTUCHINGO]

1 minute ago, Marvin said:

Welcome to the board!

Thank you. I've been here since last year. I just read more than post. I appreciate all the insight.

[dudacek]

12 minutes ago, ... said:

If you're trying to win some sort of theoretical, existential debate on the topic. However, for reasonable people trying to grapple with a topic what you are proposing is a slippery slope.

I realize that at some point my argument becomes ridiculous. I see a threshold where the risk for injury to a player - in any sport - equalizes relatively. At that point, considering that a player has chosen to pursue a professional sport in the first place, I am happy to "let them play".

Personally, I do not believe Benson, and Bedard for that matter, have crossed that threshold. I think the adults in the room, so to speak, need to be the adults in the room.

No, I think you’ve expressed your position very well: Benson is (at least for the purposes of this particular debate) a child and therefore not ready for the adult endeavour that is NHL hockey.

I disagree that it’s his age and/or physique should automatically make that call and instead think that his play should be the determining factor.

I think ultimately you’re arguing that the NHL might need to rethink its eligibility rules because allowing 18-year-olds is exposing at least some of them to unnecessary risk.

Good talk.

[LGR4GM]

Just now, ... said:

It's not lazy at all. What's lazy is countering it with a slippery slope retort.

It is exceedingly lazy and I laid out why. You are saying that if anyone at all wants Benson in the NHL it is imply for entertainment when what Benson does is literally for entertainment. Hockey is a sport, it is entertainment. This is like going to a restaurant and being mad they serve food. 

Just now, dudacek said:

No, I think you’ve expressed your position very well: Benson is (at least for the purposes of this particular debate) a child and therefore not ready for the adult endeavour that is NHL hockey.

I disagree that it’s his age and/or physique should automatically make that call and instead think that his play should be the determining factor.

I think ultimately you’re arguing that the NHL might need to rethink its eligibility rules because allowing 18-year-olds is exposing at least some of them to unnecessary risk.

That is my take away as well. 

[tom webster]

20 minutes ago, ... said:

But we're not talking about generalized groups; we're talking about a specific individual at a certain place in their physical and emotional development.

I’m not making any judgement about this specific player. I’m leaving the judgement up to the team. However, if they decide he is part of a lineup that gives them the best chance to win the next game, then you keep playing him until he doesn’t.

[LGR4GM]

if Benson is not physically ready I would hope either he or the team vocalizes that and takes the necessary steps to protect him and help him get physically ready. If that is not this season, I am fine with that. Even if it is not next season I am fine with that. 

[That Aud Smell]

I take @...'s point: He's uncomfortable with posters here clamoring for Benson to be rostered to the Sabres for the entire season without any (or at least more) regard for whether and to what extent it could unduly risk the player's health (physical, mental, emotional).

It's a fair point. And it's getting sort of caught up in the wash.

[...]

Just now, LGR4GM said:

Then you are advocating for the playing age in the NHL to be raised from 18 to say 20? That is really what you are doing. 

Well, I didn't go into this thinking about it that way, but it's probably a likely conclusion. I think a kid at 18 isn't generally developed enough physically - and I want to add emotionally - to handle playing a sport like hockey with fully developed men for 8-9 months of the year. There would obviously be exceptions from time to time, but I think the starting point should be, as DG says in the article you quoted, can they handle the physical demands of the schedule...and I would add playing a physical sport with grown men.

Just a note, too, on the emotional/mental part: after listening to a lot former players in podcasts, I think that if mental health isn't accounted for, a lot of these guys wind up damaged.

[That Aud Smell]

My point is that the team will not - cannot - just look at how Benson's performed during camp and, based solely on that data, decide whether to make him part of the team's plan for the entire season.

His age, strength, and such have to play a huge part in the decision.

 This is why I like the idea of penciling him in for 50 games or something.

Watching that 3-minute compilation of his play last night (against a lot of AHL guys, sure), I get the sense that Benson might be "built different" as the kids (used to) say. This is to @LGR4GM's original point. This guy may be special.

[bg17]

32 minutes ago, ... said:

And, FWIW, I am advocating he get a 9 game look.

You are willing to risk his safety for nine games for entertainment reasons?

[SabresBaltimore]

This kind of thing is an issue in all sports, not just hockey. Players of all ages are going to want to play all the time even when they are hurt physically (or mentally). Both physical and mental issues related to playing sports has long since been ignored by the leagues, coaches and even players themselves as players were expected to "tough it out". That's lead to a lot of long term health effects, especially with repeated concussions, etc.

 

So the player's association really needs to be the ones pushing to ensure players aren't being put in unfavorable positions because if left to the league, the team and/or just the player, they are likely going to favor playing even if there is a good reason they shouldn't.

 

The NFL's concussion protocol is a good step in that direction, but if you look at what happened to Tua last year he was out there playing when he should have clearly been required to recover.
 

Athletes play hurt all the time. Tage was playing hurt last year in the push for the playoffs. I'm sure others were as well. Inevitably I think the best that can be done is provide enough experts for physical,  mental/emotional health as well as nutrition to give these guys the best information possible to make good decisions about their careers and weigh the risks accordingly.

 

Teams are always going to try to do what they think is their best chance at winning games/a championship.

 

I don't think Benson is any different than Rousek or Levi in regards to if they play or not. If they are good enough they play. I'm not sure Levi's ready for a full NHL season straight from, especially if he's our starter. But we're going to find out because he wants to play and the team wants him to play.

[dudacek]

8 minutes ago, ... said:

Well, I didn't go into this thinking about it that way, but it's probably a likely conclusion. I think a kid at 18 isn't generally developed enough physically - and I want to add emotionally - to handle playing a sport like hockey with fully developed men for 8-9 months of the year. There would obviously be exceptions from time to time, but I think the starting point should be, as DG says in the article you quoted, can they handle the physical demands of the schedule...and I would add playing a physical sport with grown men.

Just a note, too, on the emotional/mental part: after listening to a lot former players in podcasts, I think that if mental health isn't accounted for, a lot of these guys wind up damaged.

And I agree with all of this in terms of precepts.

The one thing you haven’t tied in for me is why Zach Benson is clearly at risk here and others might not be.

18-year-olds going off on their own to live as adults is a fact of life.

Benson has been living away from his family, travelling around the country, playing against significantly bigger and stronger opponents since he was 15.

He has been preparing to make this step, literally, for years.

What criteria should be used to make that determination who is ready and who is not?