Jump to content

2018 Training Camp Thread


dlbalr

Recommended Posts

On 9/29/2018 at 2:06 PM, Machine of Loving Grace said:

 

Which happened with Mete.

 

No way do I play him more than the tryout amount. If he's ppg he still goes back. Let him return next season as a Calder contender. 

 

I want him at 19-26 or 20-27, not 18-25.

 

i'm gonna have to disagree here.

 

Mete was not negatively impacted for playing here last year, he played pretty well for us, had any normal amount of ups and downs a young dman will have throughout a season. He also looks to have grown tremendously from that experience now in this training camp, which also suggests keeping him here because he proved he could handle it was the right play, it always is. It is when you keep them around even though they show signs they are not ready, because of status or you want make them NHL ready on the fly that things get screwy.

 

Kotkaniemi has shown he is ready to play at this level, we all watched him, we all saw his incessant growth day after day, we all saw how well he performed against major matchups with Matthews and Tavares, that is as into the fire as it gets. If he came out of this camp looking like he would need to be sheltered to play in this league, i'd say send him back, but this kid looks like he can play here and even have quite an impact completely unchained. Contractual strategy does not get to play a role when it comes to the development of your top prospects, the kids show you when they are ready, and when they are you let them run with it. You send them back or keep them on for one reason and one reason only, their individual performance, and as far as I can tell, sending him away would be a huge injustice to all the work he has put in during this camp, and his very good performances. 

 

The kid has looked better than most of our vets for most of the pre-season, are we seriously talking about sending him off because we want his UFA status to be at age 27 instead of 25? I got quite a hunch if he keeps going the way he is, he is going to get paid handsomely very early in his career and for a long time. So don't worry about his UFA status, and lets figure out whether or not we are going to have to sign him to a big 8 year deal coming out of ELC like some of these other top young players are getting. At that point his UFA age matters not, because the contract will take him past his UFA years anyway.

 

He stays in the NHL because he looks NHL ready, or he goes back because he doesn't, that's it, that's all, in my books on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Link67 said:

 

i'm gonna have to disagree here.

 

Mete was not negatively impacted for playing here last year, he played pretty well for us, had any normal amount of ups and downs a young dman will have throughout a season. He also looks to have grown tremendously from that experience now in this training camp, which also suggests keeping him here because he proved he could handle it was the right play, it always is. It is when you keep them around even though they show signs they are not ready, because of status or you want make them NHL ready on the fly that things get screwy.

 

Kotkaniemi has shown he is ready to play at this level, we all watched him, we all saw his incessant growth day after day, we all saw how well he performed against major matchups with Matthews and Tavares, that is as into the fire as it gets. If he came out of this camp looking like he would need to be sheltered to play in this league, i'd say send him back, but this kid looks like he can play here and even have quite an impact completely unchained. Contractual strategy does not get to play a role when it comes to the development of your top prospects, the kids show you when they are ready, and when they are you let them run with it. You send them back or keep them on for one reason and one reason only, their individual performance, and as far as I can tell, sending him away would be a huge injustice to all the work he has put in during this camp, and his very good performances. 

 

The kid has looked better than most of our vets for most of the pre-season, are we seriously talking about sending him off because we want his UFA status to be at age 27 instead of 25? I got quite a hunch if he keeps going the way he is, he is going to get paid handsomely very early in his career and for a long time. So don't worry about his UFA status, and lets figure out whether or not we are going to have to sign him to a big 8 year deal coming out of ELC like some of these other top young players are getting. At that point his UFA age matters not, because the contract will take him past his UFA years anyway.

 

He stays in the NHL because he looks NHL ready, or he goes back because he doesn't, that's it, that's all, in my books on.

 

Great post. I don't care about his UFA status either, UNLESS we turn out to pull a Ribeiro on him: meaning keep him up because he looked good in camp, dress him for more than nine games, and then decide (or learn) that he's not ready. That would be characteristic of this incompetent regime, but let's hope not.

 

I think I take a slightly different view from many people, though, in that I don't see 'readiness for a full NHL season' as synonymous with 'looking great in training camp.' My overarching concern is with player development. A kid like K-man is a precious asset. He has to be handled correctly, in a way that maximizes his potential in the long run.

 

From this point of view, the decision to keep him in the lineup for more than nine games needs to be based more on the coaches' assessment of what kind of human being he is, than on whether he did well in preseason. Physically, is he strong enough to survive an 82-game schedule without getting pummeled? Mentally, does he have the maturity needed to survive both the pressures and the temptations of being a high-profile kid in Montreal - and is he surrounded by the kind of leadership that the Gainey 1.0 team patently lacked for its young guns like Price, Higgins, Kostitsyn, etc., which can help him to survive the pressures and avoid the traps?

 

We can't know the answers to these questions. We have to trust the coaches and management to make the right call.

 

I'm a bit concerned that the team's comical inadequacy at centre is skewing the decision-making on this. I don't say this with any certainty or high dudgeon, not at all. But if you're looking at your team and you realize you don't have a single player who can even pretend to be a top-6 C, and you've got this promising rookie C right there, it's mighty easy to let short-term wish-fulfillment start to trump cold-eyed assessment of the considerations I just mentioned. So that's what's worrying me in this decision.

 

But all that said, rookies CAN step in and make an impact over a full season. Price did it. Gallagher did it. Subban did it. Brock Boeser just did it in Vancouver despite idiotically being benched for the team's first couple of games. I don't rule it out. And if Kotkaniemi does have the royal jelly that will allow him to be a legit NHLer as a raw 19-year-old, then that's great news for the future of this organization.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

Great post. I don't care about his UFA status either, UNLESS we turn out to pull a Ribeiro on him: meaning keep him up because he looked good in camp, dress him for more than nine games, and then decide (or learn) that he's not ready. That would be characteristic of this incompetent regime, but let's hope not.

 

I think I take a slightly different view from many people, though, in that I don't see 'readiness for a full NHL season' as synonymous with 'looking great in training camp.' My overarching concern is with player development. A kid like K-man is a precious asset. He has to be handled correctly, in a way that maximizes his potential in the long run.

 

From this point of view, the decision to keep him in the lineup for more than nine games needs to be based more on the coaches' assessment of what kind of human being he is, than on whether he did well in preseason. Physically, is he strong enough to survive an 82-game schedule without getting pummeled? Mentally, does he have the maturity needed to survive both the pressures and the temptations of being a high-profile kid in Montreal - and is he surrounded by the kind of leadership that the Gainey 1.0 team patently lacked for its young guns like Price, Higgins, Kostitsyn, etc., which can help him to survive the pressures and avoid the traps?

 

We can't know the answers to these questions. We have to trust the coaches and management to make the right call.

 

I'm a bit concerned that the team's comical inadequacy at centre is skewing the decision-making on this. I don't say this with any certainty or high dudgeon, not at all. But if you're looking at your team and you realize you don't have a single player who can even pretend to be a top-6 C, and you've got this promising rookie C right there, it's mighty easy to let short-term wish-fulfillment start to trump cold-eyed assessment of the considerations I just mentioned. So that's what's worrying me in this decision.

 

But all that said, rookies CAN step in and make an impact over a full season. Price did it. Gallagher did it. Subban did it. Brock Boeser just did it in Vancouver despite idiotically being benched for the team's first couple of games. I don't rule it out. And if Kotkaniemi does have the royal jelly that will allow him to be a legit NHLer as a raw 19-year-old, then that's great news for the future of this organization.

 

 

We may not know the answer but similar to the manner in which you surmised that the organization may be thrusting him into the role due to our organizational need, I theorize that Julien does see a level of maturity with Kotkaniemi. In fact even though he wasn’t my first choice, I think this is one of the main reasons they drafted Kotkaniemi along with the fact that he was a center. He seems to have a high level of maturity for his age. It’s way too early to know this, but it would be nice if he had a Jonathan Toews like attitude who also happened to be drafted 3rd overall. 

 

Everything you said is accurate though and there is a parallel between him and Mete having played last season, in the sense that the team desperately needed a LD last year so Mete was in a sense “thrust” into the situation. I think Mete performed admirably, like really strong, last year during the preseason and then faded (relatively) once the real season kicked in. I was happy with Mete, but similar to Kotkaniemi this preseason, there were ample times where Mete was a legitimate threat offensively during last year’s preseason and then those same moments transpired much less frequently once

the real season began.

 

I think there’s a similar chance, if not a likelihood  that Kotkaniemi’s performance will drop once the season starts but at this point I’m happy to see him in the starting lineup, think he makes us better, and will reserve judgement about what I think should happen next , based on his performanxe during our first 9 games. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, xXx..CK..xXx said:

 

I think there’s a similar chance, if not a likelihood  that Kotkaniemi’s performance will drop once the season starts but at this point I’m happy to see him in the starting lineup, think he makes us better, and will reserve judgement about what I think should happen next , based on his performanxe during our first 9 games. 

 

I too would expect a "fade" from Kotkaniemi as the season grinds on. I doubt it will happen within the first nine games, though. If he's riding the pine a lot or getting 4th-line minutes by December-January, then there will certainly be grounds for rating this a mistake.

 

As a rule, I prefer letting players marinade in development leagues rather than rushing them. But there is no single best formula; like I say, it comes down to the particular person. Maybe K-man will end up getting marginal NHL minutes and nevertheless continue to develop just fine. Maybe he won't. The proof is in the blood pudding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

I too would expect a "fade" from Kotkaniemi as the season grinds on. I doubt it will happen within the first nine games, though. If he's riding the pine a lot or getting 4th-line minutes by December-January, then there will certainly be grounds for rating this a mistake.

 

As a rule, I prefer letting players marinade in development leagues rather than rushing them. But there is no single best formula; like I say, it comes down to the particular person. Maybe K-man will end up getting marginal NHL minutes and nevertheless continue to develop just fine. Maybe he won't. The proof is in the blood pudding.

 

The 9 game mark isn't that important to me

 

The 41 game mark (on the roster, not necessarily games played) is more important

 

9 games is just one year off the ELC

 

41 games is an accrued year towards arbitration (need 4 years), UFA (need 7 years), and the expansion draft

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, dlbalr said:

Agostino and Chaput clear waivers and have been assigned to Laval.  With Shaw being ready to return though, there's still going to need to be one more cut.

 

Could Shaw do a conditioning stint at Laval's training camp?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Trizzak said:

Could Shaw do a conditioning stint at Laval's training camp?

 

If he agreed to it, yes.  Given his comments about wanting to play in the opener though, I'm not sure he'd consent to it. 

 

Upon further thought, I don't think he'd qualify.  He wasn't on LTIR so he doesn't qualify for the Bona Fide Long-Term Injury/Illness Exception Conditioning Loan (13.9) that would allow him to go down without being on the active roster.  A regular Conditioning Loan (13.8) wouldn't be an option until some games were played and he'd have to be on the active roster. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Habopotamus said:

I hope Shaw gets dealt at some point 

Either Shaw or Scherbak. 

 

I think Plekanec is taking up a spot that would serve the CH better if used for Scherbak or Delarose. I like Pleks, and hope we cna trade someone to allow for him to retire a Habs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Habopotamus said:

Sherbak's value is to this team, not in a trade 

 

At this point, I think he's the odd man out.  Julien hasn't seemed to take to him and I honestly don't see a path to a lineup spot for him.  He's already on the outside looking in and as players come back, that's only going to get worse.  I think his classification is shifting from legit prospect to more of a fringe guy and if that's the case, they could be looking to move him for a young guy that recently cleared waivers and is also a fringe guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

Great post. I don't care about his UFA status either, UNLESS we turn out to pull a Ribeiro on him: meaning keep him up because he looked good in camp, dress him for more than nine games, and then decide (or learn) that he's not ready. That would be characteristic of this incompetent regime, but let's hope not.

 

I think I take a slightly different view from many people, though, in that I don't see 'readiness for a full NHL season' as synonymous with 'looking great in training camp.' My overarching concern is with player development. A kid like K-man is a precious asset. He has to be handled correctly, in a way that maximizes his potential in the long run.

 

From this point of view, the decision to keep him in the lineup for more than nine games needs to be based more on the coaches' assessment of what kind of human being he is, than on whether he did well in preseason. Physically, is he strong enough to survive an 82-game schedule without getting pummeled? Mentally, does he have the maturity needed to survive both the pressures and the temptations of being a high-profile kid in Montreal - and is he surrounded by the kind of leadership that the Gainey 1.0 team patently lacked for its young guns like Price, Higgins, Kostitsyn, etc., which can help him to survive the pressures and avoid the traps?

 

We can't know the answers to these questions. We have to trust the coaches and management to make the right call.

 

I'm a bit concerned that the team's comical inadequacy at centre is skewing the decision-making on this. I don't say this with any certainty or high dudgeon, not at all. But if you're looking at your team and you realize you don't have a single player who can even pretend to be a top-6 C, and you've got this promising rookie C right there, it's mighty easy to let short-term wish-fulfillment start to trump cold-eyed assessment of the considerations I just mentioned. So that's what's worrying me in this decision.

 

But all that said, rookies CAN step in and make an impact over a full season. Price did it. Gallagher did it. Subban did it. Brock Boeser just did it in Vancouver despite idiotically being benched for the team's first couple of games. I don't rule it out. And if Kotkaniemi does have the royal jelly that will allow him to be a legit NHLer as a raw 19-year-old, then that's great news for the future of this organization.

 

 

 

I agree, i'd be lying if I said some of this regime's incompetent decisions in the past have not got me slightly worried they may mishandle Kotkaniemi as an asset. However, I still stand by the ideology that he plays in the NHL as long as he looks like he clearly belongs. His overall game must remain looking like that of a young top 6 forward, the ups and downs will be normal and expected, they should also not be the cause for his demotion, its his overall game that must remain the deciding factor. The combination of his playing prowess, his physical adaptation to the NHL, his mental adaptation to the NHL, and to a certain degree, his ability to produce at an NHL level, that should culminate the final decision throughout the process, does he stay or does he go.

 

As long as the management side of this doesn't start keeping him around despite obvious signs over a period of time where he can't physically handle it, or he sticks around on a 4th line or even has a couple games in the press box, i'll assume they are handling it correctly. Because so far I seem to see what they see, that the kid has earned his right to start the year here, he has earned his right to get a really good look at what he can do in the top 6, against other team's top 6. That doesn't mean he should get a free ride the rest of the year, it simply means, as of right now, playing here is the best option for his development because he should be playing at the highest level he can handle while being an impactful player. Right now that appears to be the NHL, we'll see what the future holds in that regard, whether its 9 games or 41 games, Kotkaniemi's play should be dictating the terms, and nothing else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still think Scherbak’s going to be great and I hope it’s with us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, xXx..CK..xXx said:

I still think Scherbak’s going to be great and I hope it’s with us.

He got to put it all together and consistently make something happen. Hopefully he is just a slow starter, after having two poor pre-seasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, DON said:

He got to put it all together and consistently make something happen. Hopefully he is just a slow starter, after having two poor pre-seasons.

 

We've seen quite a few guys with that profile come through and never amount to anything. Some skepticism is warranted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

We've seen quite a few guys with that profile come through and never amount to anything. Some skepticism is warranted.

Ya, I dont share xXx's optimism for lil Nicky, but can hope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, alfredoh2009 said:

Either Shaw or Scherbak. 

 

I think Plekanec is taking up a spot that would serve the CH better if used for Scherbak or Delarose. I like Pleks, and hope we cna trade someone to allow for him to retire a Habs

Shaw has more trade value. Personally I would pick Scherbak over Shaw any day. I think given a chance Scherbak will be good. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Richard09 said:

Shaw has more trade value. Personally I would pick Scherbak over Shaw any day. I think given a chance Scherbak will be good. 

Suzuki, Poehling, Kotkaniemi seem to have  a higher Hockey IQ than Scherbak and will need the spot he is taking right now. The way Scherbak is playing, he willl probably be a bottom 6 or 4rth liner on a weak Canadiens lineup.

Bitten, Vejdemo and Delarose are better suited for a 4th line at this time.

 

I would trade Scherbak for a 2nd or 3rd draft pick in 2019 rather than have him as a 13th froward or 4th liner.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, xXx..CK..xXx said:

I still think Scherbak’s going to be great and I hope it’s with us.

He's played a total of 29 nhl games and has shown glimpses of being a talent hockey player. 

 

He finally broke out in the AHL last season with over a point a game...

 

He looked great last season  with Galchenyuk and Drouin, but he got hurt and sent down, then never found his rhythm again, because he was playing fourth line minutes. 

 

I mean, we're trying to rebuild with young talented players. Let's not fall back into the same bullshit where a coach( who should not be running a rebuild) takes precidence over a young first round pick. 

 

Maybe he does have issues with his compete level, maybe he needs a nudge every so often, but let's stop this bullshit where anytime a player may have a bit of an issue, we just ship him out.

 

Coach the damn kid. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Habopotamus said:

He's played a total of 29 nhl games and has shown glimpses of being a talent hockey player. 

 

He finally broke out in the AHL last season with over a point a game...

 

He looked great last season  with Galchenyuk and Drouin, but he got hurt and sent down, then never found his rhythm again, because he was playing fourth line minutes. 

 

I mean, we're trying to rebuild with young talented players. Let's not fall back into the same bullshit where a coach( who should not be running a rebuild) takes precidence over a young first round pick. 

 

Maybe he does have issues with his compete level, maybe he needs a nudge every so often, but let's stop this bullshit where anytime a player may have a bit of an issue, we just ship him out.

 

Coach the damn kid. 

 

 

 

It's the eternal debate. Is a young kid failing to make his mark because the coach isn't handling him right? Or is he failing to make his mark because he just isn't very good?

 

While coaches unquestionably can mar a player's development, I've also seen - as I note above - lots of talented-seeming guys come through who, for whatever reason, never became legit NHLers. Perezhogin, Andrighetto, and Sekac come to mind, off the top of my head. Often these guys do have brief series of games where they look good. Often they get injured and never seem to 'get back on track.' What's really going on in the latter instance is NOT that the injury derailed them, but rather that the burst of good games was a mirage.

 

I have no opinion on whether Scherbak is a legit top-6 guy waiting to break through, or just another tease who will end up in the KHL. I'm just saying that it may not be Julien's fault if he fails to materialize.

 

Here's another problem. Scherbak has to beat out one of Gallagher, Byron, Shaw, and Armia for a roster spot. The logical thing would be to look at Byron and say 'he'll be gone at the end of the year,' but the Habs seem to be all-in on Byron, having inked him to a multi-year deal and made him alternate captain. Shaw and Armia bring grit, so the coach - any coach - will likely want them in the lineup. Unless the Habs trade Shaw at the deadline - admittedly, a damned good idea - there's no place for him in the roster configuration going forward.

 

But this is only really a problem if Scherbak is, indeed, a legit top-6 RW waiting to happen. For all I know, they made the decisions about Byron after having concluded that Scherbak was unlikely to make that jump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

It's the eternal debate. Is a young kid failing to make his mark because the coach isn't handling him right? Or is he failing to make his mark because he just isn't very good?

 

While coaches unquestionably can mar a player's development, I've also seen - as I note above - lots of talented-seeming guys come through who, for whatever reason, never became legit NHLers. Perezhogin, Andrighetto, and Sekac come to mind, off the top of my head. Often these guys do have brief series of games where they look good. Often they get injured and never seem to 'get back on track.' What's really going on in the latter instance is NOT that the injury derailed them, but rather that the burst of good games was a mirage.

 

I have no opinion on whether Scherbak is a legit top-6 guy waiting to break through, or just another tease who will end up in the KHL. I'm just saying that it may not be Julien's fault if he fails to materialize.

 

Here's another problem. Scherbak has to beat out one of Gallagher, Byron, Shaw, and Armia for a roster spot. The logical thing would be to look at Byron and say 'he'll be gone at the end of the year,' but the Habs seem to be all-in on Byron, having inked him to a multi-year deal and made him alternate captain. Shaw and Armia bring grit, so the coach - any coach - will likely want them in the lineup. Unless the Habs trade Shaw at the deadline - admittedly, a damned good idea - there's no place for him in the roster configuration going forward.

 

But this is only really a problem if Scherbak is, indeed, a legit top-6 RW waiting to happen. For all I know, they made the decisions about Byron after having concluded that Scherbak was unlikely to make that jump.

All I'm saying is give this a kid a solid look in the top 6, before he's tossed away. 

 

I have a feeling we'll regret letting Scherbak go. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...