GDT STANLEY CUP FINALS: Game 3: Tampa Bay Lightning at Montréal Canadiens

[GHT120]

17 minutes ago, Commandant said:

Yes, he could accept the assignment to Laval, but why would he?

If his desire to improve his game is greater than his ego?  

I would expect that some defined term would be involved ... could also depend on who is the coach in Laval.

[alfredoh2009]

21 minutes ago, Commandant said:

 

Yes, he could accept the assignment to Laval, but why would he?

If he goes down with the specific assignment to develop his offensive game and for a determined amount of time?

[Commandant]

58 minutes ago, alfredoh2009 said:

If he goes down with the specific assignment to develop his offensive game and for a determined amount of time?

 

He can get paid more in the KHL and with no tax. 

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

6 minutes ago, Commandant said:

 

He can get paid more in the KHL and with no tax. 

 

Yeah, if I'm Romanov I do not accept a demotion to the AHL. Forget that noise.

[dlbalr]

1 hour ago, Commandant said:

Yes, he could accept the assignment to Laval, but why would he?

 

Playing time in the right scenario.  If Romanov was a frequent healthy scratch next season (doubtful but who knows what the D will look like next year) and the Habs came to him and asked him to accept a short-term conditioning stint to have a better shot at being used later on, that would be worthwhile doing.  Yes, he could block it and ask to be sent overseas but that's basically a season-ender with him getting paid at a lesser rate than what he's getting with the Habs (he's not getting a big contract in Russia with his track record, not yet at least).  He could refuse and continue to be a frequent healthy scratch but that'll cost him money down the road too.  Short-term pain for long-term gain. 

 

Generally speaking, it typically makes sense to invoke the clause and in Romanov's case, I'm pretty sure it won't come to that but that is a scenario where players with Euro assignment clauses have accepted the short-term demotion and if it played out like that for Romanov, he'd do more harm than good by rejecting the assignment.

[Commandant]

1 minute ago, dlbalr said:

 

Playing time in the right scenario.  If Romanov was a frequent healthy scratch next season (doubtful but who knows what the D will look like next year) and the Habs came to him and asked him to accept a short-term conditioning stint to have a better shot at being used later on, that would be worthwhile doing.  Yes, he could block it and ask to be sent overseas but that's basically a season-ender with him getting paid at a lesser rate than what he's getting with the Habs.  He could refuse and continue to be a frequent healthy scratch but that'll cost him money down the road too.  Short-term pain for long-term gain. 

 

Generally speaking, it typically makes sense to invoke the clause and in Romanov's case, I'm pretty sure it won't come to that but that is a scenario where players with Euro assignment clauses have accepted the short-term demotion and if it played out like that for Romanov, he'd do more harm than good by rejecting the assignment.

 

We aren't talking about a short term demotion here.  Alfredoh is talking about a scenario where the Habs sign Gustafsson, play him (and Chiarot and Edmundson) at Left D on a regular basis and Romanov goes to the AHL with instructions to spend the season there and develop his offensive game. 

 

If I'm Romanov, I'm not accepting that, knowing what I did as an NHL rookie and how I can make 2.5x the money, plus its tax free, if I go home vs playing in the AHL.  

[dlbalr]

1 minute ago, Commandant said:

We aren't talking about a short term demotion here.  Alfredoh is talking about a scenario where the Habs sign Gustafsson, play him (and Chiarot and Edmundson) at Left D on a regular basis and Romanov goes to the AHL with instructions to spend the season there and develop his offensive game. 

 

If I'm Romanov, I'm not accepting that, knowing what I did as an NHL rookie and how I can make 2.5x the money, plus its tax free, if I go home vs playing in the AHL.  

 

I read his scenario as start the season there (ie, short-term), not play the full season there.  If it was a full-season assignment, then yes, invoking the clause makes sense.

[tomh009]

3 minutes ago, Commandant said:

 

We aren't talking about a short term demotion here.  Alfredoh is talking about a scenario where the Habs sign Gustafsson, play him (and Chiarot and Edmundson) at Left D on a regular basis and Romanov goes to the AHL with instructions to spend the season there and develop his offensive game.

But that's not what Alfredo said ...

 

1 hour ago, alfredoh2009 said:

If he goes down with the specific assignment to develop his offensive game and for a determined amount of time?

 

[Commandant]

But if you've signed someone as a free agent with the intent of him taking a LD spot... what is a determined amount of time?

 

You are essentially waiting for an injury, which isn't a determined amount of time. 

 

To me, he has to be in the top 6. 

 

Look at it from his perspective... I've barely played in the playoffs only getting games when there are massive injuries or in this game 4 when we are desperate and down 3-0.  Now you've signed a free agent to replace me and are sending me to the AHL.  Do I really have faith that I'm gonna be back in the NHL and ahead of this UFA signing, who was also ahead of me all playoffs?

 

I don't think you go that road with a kid who is supposed to be part of your future and can be RFA and head back to Russia permanently in 2022.  He also has CSKA who tried to convince him to stay and is one of the Russian teams who aren't afraid to spend big.  

That's not the fire I want to play with... and for who, Gustafsson, who is absolute shit at 5v5.  Nope, sorry. 

[alfredoh2009]

14 minutes ago, Commandant said:

 

We aren't talking about a short term demotion here.  Alfredoh is talking about a scenario where the Habs sign Gustafsson, play him (and Chiarot and Edmundson) at Left D on a regular basis and Romanov goes to the AHL with instructions to spend the season there and develop his offensive game. 

 

If I'm Romanov, I'm not accepting that, knowing what I did as an NHL rookie and how I can make 2.5x the money, plus its tax free, if I go home vs playing in the AHL.  

No, @dlbalr got it right. A predetermined period of time ( a month ? 10 games) to work specifically in improving his goal scoring and offensive production

[alfredoh2009]

10 minutes ago, Commandant said:

But if you've signed someone as a free agent with the intent of him taking a LD spot... what is a determined amount of time?

 

You are essentially waiting for an injury, which isn't a determined amount of time. 

 

To me, he has to be in the top 6. 

 

Look at it from his perspective... I've barely played in the playoffs only getting games when there are massive injuries or in this game 4 when we are desperate and down 3-0.  Now you've signed a free agent to replace me and are sending me to the AHL.  Do I really have faith that I'm gonna be back in the NHL and ahead of this UFA signing, who was also ahead of me all playoffs?

 

I don't think you go that road with a kid who is supposed to be part of your future and can be RFA and head back to Russia permanently in 2022.  He also has CSKA who tried to convince him to stay and is one of the Russian teams who aren't afraid to spend big.  

That's not the fire I want to play with... and for who, Gustafsson, who is absolute shit at 5v5.  Nope, sorry. 

You are getting tripped by the flowers in the carpet

 

it is not a Gustafsson for Romanov scenario.

it is an investment in Romanov’s skills by playing whoever the NHL filler is while he is away.

 

Like Paciorerty accepted some time ago.

[hab29RETIRED]

31 minutes ago, Commandant said:

 

We aren't talking about a short term demotion here.  Alfredoh is talking about a scenario where the Habs sign Gustafsson, play him (and Chiarot and Edmundson) at Left D on a regular basis and Romanov goes to the AHL with instructions to spend the season there and develop his offensive game. 

 

If I'm Romanov, I'm not accepting that, knowing what I did as an NHL rookie and how I can make 2.5x the money, plus its tax free, if I go home vs playing in the AHL.  

There is no way I’d even consider sending Romanov down for Gustafson. He should be friggin playing now over Gustafson.
 

Having said that, next year, if he is not performing, or if we have made additions that improve the D, that push him down the depth chart, and result in lower minutes, than I think it would make sense for his progression to do a short term stint in Laval.  I think it’s too late to send him down long term, but I think a 4-6 game stint as needed would be beneficial for him to keep playing20+min in all situations. I think he is close to being a regular.
 

What I don’t know is if he is going to be a bottom line regular, or a top 4. If a short stint in Laval can help develop him into a minute munching top 4, I think it’s a win-win situation long term for both the team and the player.

[hab29RETIRED]

32 minutes ago, Commandant said:

But if you've signed someone as a free agent with the intent of him taking a LD spot... what is a determined amount of time?

 

You are essentially waiting for an injury, which isn't a determined amount of time. 

 

To me, he has to be in the top 6. 

 

Look at it from his perspective... I've barely played in the playoffs only getting games when there are massive injuries or in this game 4 when we are desperate and down 3-0.  Now you've signed a free agent to replace me and are sending me to the AHL.  Do I really have faith that I'm gonna be back in the NHL and ahead of this UFA signing, who was also ahead of me all playoffs?

 

I don't think you go that road with a kid who is supposed to be part of your future and can be RFA and head back to Russia permanently in 2022.  He also has CSKA who tried to convince him to stay and is one of the Russian teams who aren't afraid to spend big.  

That's not the fire I want to play with... and for who, Gustafsson, who is absolute shit at 5v5.  Nope, sorry. 

I don’t think we should necessarily be targeting a LD. I think we should be targeting a legit top pairing dman - regardless of whether it’s a LD or RD. Ideally Romanov pushes Chaiot and Edmondson down the depth chart.

[hab29RETIRED]

23 minutes ago, alfredoh2009 said:

You are getting tripped by the flowers in the carpet

 

it is not a Gustafsson for Romanov scenario.

it is an investment in Romanov’s skills by playing whoever the NHL filler is while he is away.

 

Like Paciorerty accepted some time ago.

Pactioretty didn’t accept it - he welcomed it over being out into a depth checking role, that he wasn’t suited for.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Why can't Romanov develop his offensive game at this level, anyway? Start by giving him some opportunities on the 2nd PP unit. Encourage him to carry the puck a bit more in specific situations. Etc. It could be that he has been conservative this year because the coaches overwhelmingly told him to focus on his own end, and maybe that makes sense for the first season. But then you slowly add to his portfolio. Surelythis "gradual development" approach makes at least as much sense as throwing him into the AHL for 20 games and hoping he has an offensive explosion which will then carry through into the NHL?

[alfredoh2009]

Just now, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

Why can't Romanov develop his offensive game at this level, anyway? Start by giving him some opportunities on the 2nd PP unit. Encourage him to carry the puck a bit more in specific situations. Etc. It could be that he has been conservative this year because the coaches overwhelmingly told him to avoid mistakes, and maybe that's fine for hist first season. But then you slowly add to his portfolio. Sure this "gradual development" approach makes at least as much sense as throwing him into the AHL for 20 games and hoping he has an offensive explosion which will then carry through into the NHL?

because the NHL is not a development league. That model has been proven wrong multiple times across multiple organization over decades

[Commandant]

21 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

Why can't Romanov develop his offensive game at this level, anyway? Start by giving him some opportunities on the 2nd PP unit. Encourage him to carry the puck a bit more in specific situations. Etc. It could be that he has been conservative this year because the coaches overwhelmingly told him to focus on his own end, and maybe that makes sense for the first season. But then you slowly add to his portfolio. Surelythis "gradual development" approach makes at least as much sense as throwing him into the AHL for 20 games and hoping he has an offensive explosion which will then carry through into the NHL?

 

Exactly. 

 

Development happens all the time at the NHL level, but you have to encourage a young player and be willing to live with the odd mistake while he is taking more risks.

[Commandant]

21 minutes ago, alfredoh2009 said:

because the NHL is not a development league. That model has been proven wrong multiple times across multiple organization over decades

 

There are a number of players who have developed their games at the NHL level.  Rookies often start slow and improve over time.  The whole concept of a "breakout season" is because a player has been developing at the NHL level. 

[alfredoh2009]

2 minutes ago, Commandant said:

 

There are a number of players who have developed their games at the NHL level.  Rookies often start slow and improve over time.  The whole concept of a "breakout season" is because a player has been developing at the NHL level. 

I know, but in Romanov's case it seems like we are asking him to develop a facet of his game that he has never had. He needs to have all the support and ice time needed to succeed.

 

A 10 game sting in Laval to work on this specifically can only help his development. Not doing it puts all the weight on the shoulders of the player. He is talented, but it is just unfair to shortchange him

 

 

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

34 minutes ago, alfredoh2009 said:

I know, but in Romanov's case it seems like we are asking him to develop a facet of his game that he has never had. He needs to have all the support and ice time needed to succeed.

 

A 10 game sting in Laval to work on this specifically can only help his development. Not doing it puts all the weight on the shoulders of the player. He is talented, but it is just unfair to shortchange him

 

 

 

If he has never had an offensive element to his game, then he is not going to suddenly discover it in the AHL.

 

If he has had that element, then it is a matter of helping him to bring it out, and that does not necessarily have to happen only at the AHL level.

[DON]

1 hour ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

Why can't Romanov develop his offensive game at this level, anyway? 

Because NHL isnt a development league, that is what the minors is for, for real prospects anyways.

That is where he can play 30minutes/game and be on both 1 & 2 PP units risk-free and under no daily fan scrutinizing. 

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

24 minutes ago, DON said:

Because NHL isnt a development league, that is what the minors is for, for real prospects anyways.

That is where he can play 30minutes/game and be on both 1 & 2 PP units risk-free and under no daily fan scrutinizing. 

 

You're the second guy to say that this isn't a developmental league. But what does that mean? It cannot possibly mean that NHLers arrive fully-formed in all aspects of the game and do not further develop their skills once here. Players become better at various aspects of the game by working on them at the NHL level.

 

Now I have no problem with - in fact, I favour - letting guys marinade in the AHL. But Romanov's KHL escape clause renders that problematic. alfredoh talks about sending him down for "10 games." Well, he is unlikely to morph into an offensive powerhouse in 10 AHL games. "Marinading" and "dominating" at the AHL level implies a longer stretch than that.

 

On the wider point, though, I just do not think it makes sense to argue that, any time a bona-fide player needs to develop some aspect of his game, you have to, by definition, send him down. That would be crazy, since nearly every player under the age of 25-26 has things they need to work on (and even grizzled veterans keep refining skills and trying to develop new ones). The real issue is whether Romanov is a bona-fide NHL player or not at this stage of his career. If he's not, then it's unfortunate that he's been inserted in the lineup for 54 out of 56 regular-season games. If he is, then he can, in principle, gradually develop his offensive game next season - assuming that he has the skill-set required.

[Prime Minister Koivu]

By all accounts Romanov is a coach’s dream. He is eager, capable, teachable, etc. All at a high level. 
 

Tell the guy to shoot and he will 

 

Tell him to step up and shoot instead of backing off to be safe and he will. 
 

Instruct him and let him make the mistakes without benching him. He has clearly been coached to be conservative - let him go and sharpen his strengths. 

[Commandant]

4 hours ago, alfredoh2009 said:

I know, but in Romanov's case it seems like we are asking him to develop a facet of his game that he has never had. He needs to have all the support and ice time needed to succeed.

 

A 10 game sting in Laval to work on this specifically can only help his development. Not doing it puts all the weight on the shoulders of the player. He is talented, but it is just unfair to shortchange him

 

 

 

He has not showed this as a teeneager in the KHL or as a 20 year old rookie in the NHL, both instances where he had third pair minutes (or even fourth pair in russia) and its likely coaches told him to be conservative.

 

Playing against teenagers he was the best offensive D two straight years at the World Juniors and also when he was in russian junior leagues.

 

That said... someone said develop his goal scoring.  Thats meh to me.  I dont care how many goals he scores.  I want him to move the puck up the ice with possession either skating it or through good passing.  I want him to keep the puck in the offensive zone and pass to teammates and create scoring chances.  If he has 3-5 goals and 30 assists in his prime when hes 25, 26 years old while playing defence against the other teams best players and being physical, thats exactly what you want out of him.

[GHT120]

27 minutes ago, Commandant said:

... Playing against teenagers he was the best offensive D two straight years at the World Juniors and also when he was in russian junior leagues ...

Think the idea would be to give him a chance to focus on getting back the confidence to play that way against pros in an environment where every mistake will not be put under a microscope ... but totally agree it shouldn't be an extended visit to Laval.