Max Pac wants to play in Hamilton all season long

[huzer]

So let me get this straight. People on the boards have clamored for years that young players don't get ice time and are undeservedly punished for mistakes and the coaches need to cut some of the youngsters some slack. So now, a young player basically says the same thing, albeit the way he said it wasn't the brightest, and folks are up in arms?

What's quoted below is what I heard him say. Not the ultimatum people are making it out to be.

exactly. And he isn't going to become one playing 5-7 minutes a game with Pyatt, Darche, Boyd or Moen. He is much better served playing in Hamilton - where he should have been 2 years ago. Unless a guy is a can't miss prospect, i'd rather have a guy gain confidence dominating in the AHL before bringing him up.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

I don't give a rat's ass if Martin is popular with his players. What interests me is whether he knows how to develop those players. His track record is in fact very good on this score. Indeed, three high-profile star-calibre players achieved their highest success under JM and, in his absence, slipped into inexorable mediocrity: Jay Bouwmeester, Olie Jokinen, and Wade Redden. Never again did they approach anything close to the excellence that Martin coaxed out of them. And then there's a pile of other higher-end players that developed extremely well under Martin's tutelage. So you've got a raft of young players who fully developed under JM and a handful of others who only excelled under JM. I offer some lengthy thoughts on this issue in this thread: http://forums.habsworld.net/index.php?showtopic=22142 The upshot: his record is quite impressive on this front and anyone attacking his handling of young players needs to confront that record, not just traipse along in some delusional belief that the path to player development is to be beloved by players.

Whether Martin is able to win the Big Game is another question. That's more about bench managment and tactics than about player development. The argument that Martin is comparatively weak in this area is much stronger, although you'd think that last season's playoff run would at least partially insulate him from vehement condemnation of this front from Habs's fans. You'd think.

Edited November 8, 2010 by The Chicoutimi Cucumber

[Seb]

Since when do players break into the NHL on the top two lines? It's rare. It's reserved for the Malkins, Crosbys and Ovechkins. Players that can begin dominating immediately. People don't see that the best way to develop a player is to give him solid veteran linemates, some consistency and to avoid over-exposure to risky situations to allow the player to get his feet under him at the NHL level.

Does this sound familiar? Pouliot was removed from the Gomez/Gionta line immediately at the start of the season and has now found himself playing with two wiley ol' hardworking vets. The result is production and steady play from Pouliot. Arguably the best we've seen since his arrival when he played with a steady and consistent Gionta and Gomez duo. So why do you think JM isn't playing Pouliot with GG? Because at this stage of his career, it's better for Pouliot to play a consistent and unspectacular game every night, than to be all over the board, trying to kick-start Gionta and Gomez. If the two vets can't get themselves going, how can a 22 year old? That's just setting Pouliot up to fail, and bring him back to his no confidence kind of game he played at the end of last season. Martin is protecting Pouliot while he learns. Martin did the same for Spezza in Ottawa when he was a rookie, and it worked out. Pouliot is gaining valuable experience every day, especially when he's playing well. Why mess with that?

As for Max Pac, Martin was trying the same with him last season, but his confidence was in the gutter to begin with, and it never recovered. Now they're going to take the slow road with and let him learn as much as possible in Hamilton. But when he gets called up, will it be in a top-6 role? Maybe, he might get a few games to wet his beak again, to give him an idea of where his game needs to be (of course that would mean a top 6 player being injured), and then sent back to keep learning. Learning is what it's all about at this stage of the game for players who've yet to play 100 or so professional games. How good was Pleks in his 100th Professional game? 200th?

It's patience, and putting young players in safe and consistent environments to succeed. Right now, Gomez and Gionta are not what is good for a rookie. It just so happens that the best place for a rookie to learn and improve, is on the 3rd and 4th lines with other solid, consistent players. Max Pac will have to show he can play solid and consistent hockey on the third line before moving up permanently. But there is much for him to learn at the AHL level, and spending an entire season on the top line there will do him good.

Take a look at this article: http://ruefrontenac.com/mleclerc/29904-chr...-benoit-pouliot

In it, the author is trying to make a purely statistical argument for putting Pouliot with Gomez and Gionta. If I could speak with the author, I'd ask "Why?". Look at Pouliot's success so far this season. Is it all him? Is he scoring on big individual plays? Is he making his linemates look good? Is he affecting the flow of the game on every single shift he plays? The answer is no. So why break up that unit to put Pouliot with two underperforming players. I just find the article incredibly short-sighted and lacking any kind of thought. It's just numbers, with the conclusion being "they're treating him so badly, it must be about money."

[BTH]

That's not what he said at all. He said he sees himself as a top 6 player.

Actually that is what he said.

"If it's not in that situation, I don't feel the need to be in Montreal," said Pacioretty. "They have enough third-, fourth-line players to take on that load. If they think they can plug me into the top-6, I'd be happy with that. Probably would be the best thing for me.

"Hopefully if that does happen, I'd be able to stick there and have the coaches show confidence in me if I make a mistake. Hopefully stick with that line instead of getting put down on the bottom two lines," he said. "If I did get put down on the bottom two lines, I rather stay in Hamilton."

But like Seb says, this just isn't realistic. Unless you're a super-prospect, you're going to have to work your way up the depth chart.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Actually that is what he said.

"If it's not in that situation, I don't feel the need to be in Montreal," said Pacioretty. "They have enough third-, fourth-line players to take on that load. If they think they can plug me into the top-6, I'd be happy with that. Probably would be the best thing for me.

"Hopefully if that does happen, I'd be able to stick there and have the coaches show confidence in me if I make a mistake. Hopefully stick with that line instead of getting put down on the bottom two lines," he said. "If I did get put down on the bottom two lines, I rather stay in Hamilton."

But like Seb says, this just isn't realistic. Unless you're a super-prospect, you're going to have to work your way up the depth chart.

Spot on. This looks suspiciously to me like yet another example of the profound rot that seems to have run through an entire generation of players brought up through the first Gainey rebuild...some sort of attitude of entitlement and a related willingness to blame others when things go wrong rather than look inward and make the sacrifices needed to excel. We saw exactly the same sort of crap with Sergei, Grabovksi, Latendresse, arguably with Carey Price to some degree, even Perezhogin and perhaps a few others (Higgins and Komi?). I'm beginning to wonder whether part of Pacioretty's problem was not so much confidence as counter-productive self-pitying and coach-blaming (the preferred strategy of most of these other guys). Once you buy into the argument that it's not YOUR fault, it's the ORGANIZATION'S fault, you are not going to succeed, because you're not taking responsibility. Remember, this was the generation of Habs that spent most of 2008-09 trying to get Carbo fired rather than zeroing in becoming the Conference champions many expected that team to become.

There is a story to be written on how this catastrophic rot set into the deepest roots of this organization even under the watch of one of the greatest character guys of all time (Gainey). The best move Gainey ever made was to utterly purge the entire organization in the summer of 2009 and replace everyone with players and (hopefully) coaches who, whatever their limitations, have the character to succeed. It would not surprise me at all to see Pacioretty shipped out eventually.

Edited November 8, 2010 by The Chicoutimi Cucumber

[Seb]

Spot on. This looks suspiciously to me like yet another example of the profound rot that seems to have run through an entire generation of players brought up through the first Gainey rebuild...some sort of attitude of entitlement and a related willingness to blame others when things go wrong rather than look inward and make the sacrifices needed to excel. We saw exactly the same sort of crap with Sergei, Grabovksi, Latendresse, arguably with Carey Price to some degree, even Perezhogin and perhaps a few others (Higgins and Komi?). I'm beginning to wonder whether part of Pacioretty's problem was not so much confidence as counter-productive self-pitying and coach-blaming (the preferred strategy of most of these other guys). Once you buy into the argument that it's not YOUR fault, it's the ORGANIZATION'S fault, you are not going to succeed, because you're not taking responsibility. Remember, this was the generation of Habs that spent most of 2008-09 trying to get Carbo fired rather than zeroing in becoming the Conference champions many expected that team to become.

There is a story to be written on how this catastrophic rot set into the deepest roots of this organization even under the watch of one of the greatest character guys of all time (Gainey). The best move Gainey ever made was to utterly purge the entire organization in the summer of 2009 and replace everyone with players and (hopefully) coaches who, whatever their limitations, have the character to succeed. It would not surprise me at all to see Pacioretty shipped out eventually.

I think it depends on how exactly Pacioretty means what he said. Of course we could dissect the words and the way everything was said, but was it a sort of naive kind of "Hey, I like playing in Hamilton, I'm having fun and succeeding thus far, and I want to get better, and hopefully when they call me up, I'll be given a chance to show what I can do on the top 6", or was it meant to be a message to PG et al like "I'm a top 6 player, I want to score, and I want to play top 6 minutes. So don't bother calling me up for anything less."

Personally, I don't think it was a shot at the coach or the team, I think it was just a very direct way of saying what he was trying to say. I just think it's incredibly stupid to call out your coach or GM publicly like that, and I like to think most people just aren't that stupid (but stupidity shows no bounds, and there is nothing that pisses me off more in this world than stupidity), and sure hope Max isn't stupid.

I think in the end, Max wanted more or less to say that his confidence got crushed last season, and if he happens to be recalled, he's hoping for a more prolonged look on the top 6, with a little extra leeway when mistakes happen (we know JM is quick on the benching of young players [not a criticism, just an observation]), because he feels that that's what he would need to be successful in a top 6 role in Montreal.

Or he's dumb as a stump, and meant to say he's too good for 3rd and 4th line duties. Then he's a real idiot.

[saskhab]

First off, Max Pac has to prove he's a top line AHL player... he hadn't ever done that. That was a mistake (IMO) to call him up before he had accomplished that just because his skill set and size was impressive.

Actually, if he does turn into a top 6 player, his development curve is kind of like Andrei Kostitsyn's. He got several early callups based on his physical attributes and natural skill rather than what he had accomplished. He only had one good half season in the AHL before he made it for good.

Fact is, this to me is an argument to limit the number of rookies/players under 23 you should have on your roster. We currently have two... for me, that's enough.

[bar]

You want a player that wants to play top 6 minutes. Why is this a bad thing? He'd rather play 20+ minutes a game in the AHL then 8 in the NHL. I am firmly against putting skilled players into roles that they traditionally shouldn't be on and in a position to fail. Why not give them the best chance to succeed?

[dlbalr]

You want a player that wants to play top 6 minutes. Why is this a bad thing? He'd rather play 20+ minutes a game in the AHL then 8 in the NHL. I am firmly against putting skilled players into roles that they traditionally shouldn't be on and in a position to fail. Why not give them the best chance to succeed?

That in itself isn't a bad thing, I think most would agree. Him coming out and talking about how things were better for him under Carbonneau doesn't help his own cause though and that's my concern. We all know he's right, but it still shouldn't be said, at least publicly. Everyone wants to be a top-6 player and I'm glad he realizes he has some work to do to get there so there is some good that comes from this. I just think he could have said it a little better.

[Wamsley01]

Players are human, sometimes they open their mouth and honesty comes out.

It is amazing that we are spoon fed cliches and the second somebody says what they think the fear

is that he is gone, punched a ticket out of town.

I didn't hear the interview, but from what I can gather it wasn't a player trying to eviscerate management,

it was a player naively speaking out of line.

The accountability we hold 21 year olds to is baffling. 99% of 21 year olds I have ever met blame everybody

else for their problems. The majority feel the world revolves around them and their decisions. At 21 you really

have a lot to learn and I guarantee you when somebody asks Max about this interview in 5-6 years he will

be embarrassed by it.

Sergei was given 4-5 chances and was petulant and unrepentant towards the Canadiens before he was dealt.

Max Pac has probably told to keep things in house, end of story as far as I am concerned.

[Seb]

Players are human, sometimes they open their mouth and honesty comes out.

It is amazing that we are spoon fed cliches and the second somebody says what they think the fear

is that he is gone, punched a ticket out of town.

I didn't hear the interview, but from what I can gather it wasn't a player trying to eviscerate management,

it was a player naively speaking out of line.

The accountability we hold 21 year olds to is baffling. 99% of 21 year olds I have ever met blame everybody

else for their problems. The majority feel the world revolves around them and their decisions. At 21 you really

have a lot to learn and I guarantee you when somebody asks Max about this interview in 5-6 years he will

be embarrassed by it.

Sergei was given 4-5 chances and was petulant and unrepentant towards the Canadiens before he was dealt.

Max Pac has probably told to keep things in house, end of story as far as I am concerned.

I'm 21, but Amen.

[Wamsley01]

I'm 21, but Amen.

LOL. Not an insult, just commenting on myself and friends at that age.

There are always exceptions, hence the 1% for error

[bar]

I act like 21 if that counts!

[Seb]

LOL. Not an insult, just commenting on myself and friends at that age.

There are always exceptions, hence the 1% for error

Haha yeah, I'm agreeing with you completely.

My post should have read "I'm 21, and Amen."

(Not for long though! 22 on the 24th.)

[v-hab]

I don't give a rat's ass if Martin is popular with his players. What interests me is whether he knows how to develop those players. His track record is in fact very good on this score. Indeed, three high-profile star-calibre players achieved their highest success under JM and, in his absence, slipped into inexorable mediocrity: Jay Bouwmeester, Olie Jokinen, and Wade Redden. Never again did they approach anything close to the excellence that Martin coaxed out of them. And then there's a pile of other higher-end players that developed extremely well under Martin's tutelage. So you've got a raft of young players who fully developed under JM and a handful of others who only excelled under JM. I offer some lengthy thoughts on this issue in this thread: http://forums.habsworld.net/index.php?showtopic=22142 The upshot: his record is quite impressive on this front and anyone attacking his handling of young players needs to confront that record, not just traipse along in some delusional belief that the path to player development is to be beloved by players.

Whether Martin is able to win the Big Game is another question. That's more about bench managment and tactics than about player development. The argument that Martin is comparatively weak in this area is much stronger, although you'd think that last season's playoff run would at least partially insulate him from vehement condemnation of this front from Habs's fans. You'd think.

Admittedly, I have not read your posts in long time, however it is nice to read you have not lost your enthusiasm to quote a detailed opinion, especially in defense of Martin as a coach. I will try and defend my statements knowing full well I will not change your thinking, nor have you change mine.

After reviewing your post several times I decided to ‘fact check’ the information, also to confirm my own thinking. I found you may have been ‘generous’ in your defense of Martin by suggesting his success with; Alfredsson/133, Hossa/12, Havlat/26, Phillips/1, Redden /20, Jokinen/3, Bouwemeester/3 and Spezza/2 you have directly credited Martin with their success then as development and into today.

With the exception of Alfredsson drafted 6/133 the rest were drafted in their first round the lowest being Havlat at #26.with the #1-2-3-3 picks. It’s interesting to note ( again with the exception of Alfredsson ) all came into the NHL a ‘superstars’ and continue long past Martin’s departure. When you review the numbers ( points) for these players when they first arrived in the NHL under Martin very little has changed for any of these players today, except they are older. Lets take Spezza as a example,

Pre-Martin

02/03 - 33 GP – 7G – 14 a = 21 the year of hell under Martin.

03/04 – 78GP – 22G – 33 a =55

Post Martin

05/06 – 68GP – 19G – 71a =90

06/07 – 67GP – 34G – 53a =87

07/08 – 76GP – 34G – 58a = 92

The same results apply with the others goal scorers stayed goal scorers, so my question would be how do give credit to Martin for developing prospects. I have to stand by my statement as a coach Martin is a dinosaur long past his ’best before date’. I will continue to be concerned for assets like Pouliot ( less now that he is scoring) Eller,Lapierre and even PK the high ice time is a invitation to make mistakes, I understand with the weak defense it is necessary, but there is a risk .

[saskhab]

Pre-Martin

02/03 - 33 GP – 7G – 14 a = 21 the year of hell under Martin.

03/04 – 78GP – 22G – 33 a =55

Post Martin

05/06 – 68GP – 19G – 71a =90

06/07 – 67GP – 34G – 53a =87

07/08 – 76GP – 34G – 58a = 92

The same results apply with the others goal scorers stayed goal scorers, so my question would be how do give credit to Martin for developing prospects. I have to stand by my statement as a coach Martin is a dinosaur long past his ’best before date’. I will continue to be concerned for assets like Pouliot ( less now that he is scoring) Eller,Lapierre and even PK the high ice time is a invitation to make mistakes, I understand with the weak defense it is necessary, but there is a risk .

Spezza was 19 in 2002/03 and 20 in 2003/04. He was 22-24 in the years after. Also, 2002-04 was the "old" NHL with less scoring in general. That probably explains the stat spike more than anything.

That 2002/03 Ottawa team was darn good... they nearly won the Stanley Cup and won the President's Trophy. I'd guess that Martin was fine leaving the development angle for the AHL coach. Spezza was strictly an injury callup for the team, albeit a talented one.

[Wamsley01]

Spezza was 19 in 2002/03 and 20 in 2003/04. He was 22-24 in the years after. Also, 2002-04 was the "old" NHL with less scoring in general. That probably explains the stat spike more than anything.

That 2002/03 Ottawa team was darn good... they nearly won the Stanley Cup and won the President's Trophy. I'd guess that Martin was fine leaving the development angle for the AHL coach. Spezza was strictly an injury callup for the team, albeit a talented one.

Also missing in that Spezza overview was the fact that he played a full season in the AHL in 2005.

Eric Staal went from being an overwhelmed 20 year old in 2003-04 to 100 points as a 22 year old.

He also had a development year in the AHL.

So the statistical leaps need to include their AHL year, there is a big difference in the maturity (physical/emotional) level of 20 and 22.

[Habsy]

Also missing in that Spezza overview was the fact that he played a full season in the AHL in 2005.

Eric Staal went from being an overwhelmed 20 year old in 2003-04 to 100 points as a 22 year old.

He also had a development year in the AHL.

So the statistical leaps need to include their AHL year, there is a big difference in the maturity (physical/emotional) level of 20 and 22.

Absolutely, and that's exactly why Lars Eller should be Pax's centreman in Hamilton.

[saskhab]

Absolutely, and that's exactly why Lars Eller should be Pax's centreman in Hamilton.

I'm torn on Eller right now. He had such a good AHL season last year, combined with his international pedigree, that he should be ready. I don't think there's harm in him playing 4th line in the NHL, but there wouldn't be in top line in the AHL again, either. That said, I don't want him to get frustrated and lose his confidence at the NHL level... it can take a while to recover. I thought he scored last night... just trickled wide. Dude needs a goal ASAP.

[Wamsley01]

I'm torn on Eller right now. He had such a good AHL season last year, combined with his international pedigree, that he should be ready. I don't think there's harm in him playing 4th line in the NHL, but there wouldn't be in top line in the AHL again, either. That said, I don't want him to get frustrated and lose his confidence at the NHL level... it can take a while to recover. I thought he scored last night... just trickled wide. Dude needs a goal ASAP.

I refuse to comment on ruining a players development without knowing that players internal makeup.

I am tired of reactionary analysis based on zero information. Price was ruined on how many occasions over

the last 2 seasons? Does anybody know his mental approach? If he is strong or weak? Do they know work ethic?

We don't know what Eller is learning in practice. We don't know if he pouts and goes home and eats Cheetos or

if when he struggles if he hits the weight room and skates for an extra hour working on his game.

Some players are mentally fragile, some are going to make it no matter what because they refuse to allow

barriers to stop their progress.

Look at Stamkos. 2 years ago the guy was floundering in the NHL and the same voices (his coach included) said

he was not strong enough for the NHL and that he would be better off in junior. Now the guy has been vaulted into

discussions about if he is better than Crosby.

Eller is not embarrassing himself and lack of production at 21 doesn't mean he will not produce from games 40-82

or at the age of 23.

[Seb]

I refuse to comment on ruining a players development without knowing that players internal makeup.

I am tired of reactionary analysis based on zero information. Price was ruined on how many occasions over

the last 2 seasons? Does anybody know his mental approach? If he is strong or weak? Do they know work ethic?

We don't know what Eller is learning in practice. We don't know if he pouts and goes home and eats Cheetos or

if when he struggles if he hits the weight room and skates for an extra hour working on his game.

Some players are mentally fragile, some are going to make it no matter what because they refuse to allow

barriers to stop their progress.

Look at Stamkos. 2 years ago the guy was floundering in the NHL and the same voices (his coach included) said

he was not strong enough for the NHL and that he would be better off in junior. Now the guy has been vaulted into

discussions about if he is better than Crosby.

Eller is not embarrassing himself and lack of production at 21 doesn't mean he will not produce from games 40-82

or at the age of 23.

Yes.

I'd be worried if there was a lack of effort, or reports of internal problems within the team caused by Eller. But for now, he's got a full time spot on an NHL roster, he's working out every day with a good veteran group of NHLers, he's around an experienced coaching staff at all times and he's given low-expectation ice-time with a bit of top 6 time to keep him motivated. He's learning, and the only way his ice-time can go is up.

When JM feels Eller is more dependable, his ice-time will increase accordingly. It just takes time. There are what? 67 games left? It'll come.

[saskhab]

I refuse to comment on ruining a players development without knowing that players internal makeup.

I am tired of reactionary analysis based on zero information. Price was ruined on how many occasions over

the last 2 seasons? Does anybody know his mental approach? If he is strong or weak? Do they know work ethic?

We don't know what Eller is learning in practice. We don't know if he pouts and goes home and eats Cheetos or

if when he struggles if he hits the weight room and skates for an extra hour working on his game.

Some players are mentally fragile, some are going to make it no matter what because they refuse to allow

barriers to stop their progress.

Look at Stamkos. 2 years ago the guy was floundering in the NHL and the same voices (his coach included) said

he was not strong enough for the NHL and that he would be better off in junior. Now the guy has been vaulted into

discussions about if he is better than Crosby.

Eller is not embarrassing himself and lack of production at 21 doesn't mean he will not produce from games 40-82

or at the age of 23.

I'm not commenting on his internal makeup really, but I do wonder whether we are preparing him to outperform his rookie contract... None of my concern was long term, unless you consider mid-season to year end long term.

That said, I don't think there is a guy in the AHL that can offer as much as Eller can on paper: his talent AND versatility make him the cream of the crop.

[Wamsley01]

I'm not commenting on his internal makeup really, but I do wonder whether we are preparing him to outperform his rookie contract... None of my concern was long term, unless you consider mid-season to year end long term.

That said, I don't think there is a guy in the AHL that can offer as much as Eller can on paper: his talent AND versatility make him the cream of the crop.

The comment wasn't really aimed at Eller, just the constant second guessing here about development with

1% of the information that Gainey, Gauthier, Martin, Timmons etc possess.

Even if they make a mistake and rush a player, somebody's assessment with 1% information could be correct,

but it is essentially a shot in the dark with none of the relevant info.

[Habsy]

The comment wasn't really aimed at Eller, just the constant second guessing here about development with

1% of the information that Gainey, Gauthier, Martin, Timmons etc possess.

Even if they make a mistake and rush a player, somebody's assessment with 1% information could be correct,

but it is essentially a shot in the dark with none of the relevant info.

That's all fine, however, he recorded under 5 minutes of ice time last game. It's hockey 101, in fact it's just the common sense basics, young players have to play to develop.

[dlbalr]

That's all fine, however, he recorded under 5 minutes of ice time last game. It's hockey 101, in fact it's just the common sense basics, young players have to play to develop.

An argument can made otherwise - as long as the player is practicing with the team, he still develops. I can think of a couple of cases - Alex Pietrangelo with STL the last 2 years who played his 9 games, sat for about 30, and went back to juniors afterwards. Also, Kyle Clifford and Brayden Schenn with LA this year, the former is expected to stick with LA and play about half the games at about 6-8 minutes per night...much to the chagrin of Barrie Colts fans like myself. But, it goes to show that there seems to be an evolving school of thought that sometimes practice time is enough to justify keeping a player around, even if he's not playing in-game.