Jump to content

Rushing Prospects, Why does it always seem to happen?


DON

Recommended Posts

Is all kinds of talk about "NOT" rushing prospects, that is about it, it seems? 

And look at Habs sickbay?

Why do they run Guhle back out there in 3rd period of a blowout game, after already getting hit hard 3 times and trip to dressing room (because he said "I am good to go coach!"?)

 

 

https://www.habseyesontheprize.com/2023/1/28/23575711/rushing-prospects-is-a-bad-idea

 

:wall:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thought process seems to be big body forward = NHL ready, small body forward = not NHL ready. This predates Hughes, Bergevin, Gainey, Savard, etc, etc. Generally, it's bigger bodies that get rushed. In reality, no player, regardless of size, should be rushed. Simply put, no 18 year old is ready. Why so many hockey minds can't get that is beyond me. It'd never happen, but the NHL/NHLPA should implement a higher minimum age to save GMs from themselves. It's stupid. Imagine putting a high school football player directly into the NFL.

 

As far as injuries, that's a a completely different issue. However, I'm sure a good percentage of the Habs injuries, they would be playing if the Habs weren't a basement team. A longer recovery period instead of the typical 2-3 months players get from surgeries during the off season should certainly be beneficial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Historically, a lot of it has been wishful thinking (Galy) and/or a need for a PR sugar high. (Remember all the breathless talk around Mete?)

 

It’s fine to say that “it’s player dependent,” but that leaves the window open for teams to kid themselves, like we did with Galchenyuk. “Well, this guy is special.” No he wasn’t.

 

Even the great Carey Price was almost destroyed by being thrown into the deep end and left to sink or swim.

 

So my view has been consistent: we should err on the side of letting guys marinade in the A.

 

On the other hand, Hughes has a massive belief in MSL and the developmental merits of the NHL staff. I think that’s a factor with this particular management group. https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/article/qa-canadiens-gm-kent-hughes-on-evolving-plans-injuries-and-the-patience-of-fans/

 

Time will tell - I like the coaches - but the early returns are not incredibly promising. Players who surpassed expectations, like Wifi and Guhle, have been injured; and there may be a valid correlation between youthful inexperience and the tendency to get hurt. Meanwhile, Slaf did nothing notable despite being handed an unearned slot - shades of KK - and now he too is hurt. Before he went down for good we repeatedly saw him putting himself in vulnerable positions.

 

Taking an 18 year old who has never played on North American ice and throwing him into the NHL suggests that this group isn’t much different from the Houle/Gainey/Bergevin era. They may have a different rationale (“MSL is magic!”) but the pattern is the same.

 

I don’t like it. But hopefully Hugo is right and I am wrong.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Commandant said:

No 18 year old is ready?

 

Was Crosby not ready? McDavid? 

 

even a level down from that Matthews? MacKinnon? etc....

 

 

The idea that every prospect has the same path is just false. 

I’d agree that prospects all have different paths. There is a HUGE difference between playing can’t miss highly touted expected to be generational players that are 18 years old vs a Slafkovsky- who we still don’t whether he is the best player in his draft class.

 

I’ve liked almost every other move this Mgmt team has made, but absolutely hated Slafkovsky given more than his 9 game dress rehearsal, as well as him not being loaned out for the world juniors.

 

There’s always the don’t worry Joe Thornton argument where in his first year, he wasn’t even the best 18 year old picked from his draft on his own team, but went on to have a hall of fame career. But important note was that most of those hall of fame credentials came from the team he was traded to.

 

I think the VAST MAJORITY of 18 year olds can benefit from further development. What I absolutely hated was unlike CHL players where you only have one option, NHL or juniors, the habs had four options.

1) Europe - can’t control or influence his development.

2) CHL - can’t control or influence his development, but allow him to dominate hole learning the North American game.

3) Laval - learn the North American game, and be a pro, while having greater control of his development.

4) NHL - most amount of control over his development - whether he is ready or not - which he clearly didn’t looked like he belonged most nights.

 

My preferred choice oils have been #2, than #3. Unless you have a can’t miss guy, it seems stupid not only rushing him, but also wasting a year of his entry level contract. 
 

We already rushed other guys who weren’t the consensus best options at where he were picked in Galchenyuk, and KK (not going with Hughes or Tkachuk is looking extremely stupid), in an attempt to finally get a centre.
 

Slafkovsky has a lot of promise, and I really hope he pan out and becomes the best player in his draft class, but right now the decision to rush him looks extremely bad and stupid.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

Historically, a lot of it has been wishful thinking (Galy) and/or a need for a PR sugar high. (Remember all the breathless talk around Mete?)

 

It’s fine to say that “it’s player dependent,” but that leaves the window open for teams to kid themselves, like we did with Galchenyuk. “Well, this guy is special.” No he wasn’t.

 

Even the great Carey Price was almost destroyed by being thrown into the deep end and left to sink or swim.

 

So my view has been consistent: we should err on the side of letting guys marinade in the A.

 

On the other hand, Hughes has a massive belief in MSL and the developmental merits of the NHL staff. I think that’s a factor with this particular management group. https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/article/qa-canadiens-gm-kent-hughes-on-evolving-plans-injuries-and-the-patience-of-fans/

 

Time will tell - I like the coaches - but the early returns are not incredibly promising. Players who surpassed expectations, like Wifi and Guhle, have been injured; and there may be a valid correlation between youthful inexperience and the tendency to get hurt. Meanwhile, Slaf did nothing notable despite being handed an unearned slot - shades of KK - and now he too is hurt. Before he went down for good we repeatedly saw him putting himself in vulnerable positions.

 

Taking an 18 year old who has never played on North American ice and throwing him into the NHL suggests that this group isn’t much different from the Houle/Gainey/Bergevin era. They may have a different rationale (“MSL is magic!”) but the pattern is the same.

 

I don’t like it. But hopefully Hugo is right and I am wrong.

I think there is definitely a bigger risk of young players getting hurt. First of all, I don’t think they are fully developed physically. Yeah, we are talking about all big boys, but there is a difference between a guy growing into his body and getting stronger relative to his size, and just growing big. despite 

 

secondly, they haven’t learned to protect themselves. For big players, I think it’s even a bigger risk when tied to the first reason. These guys are big, but not even close to being as strong as they will be, or growing into their body, but they are used to bowling over guys their age. Than they get into the NHL, not yet even close to be physically developed, and than hey have to ho up against players who are stronger then them, and don’t realize the importance of protecting themselves. In Slafkovsky’s case, add in not having played the North American game, and you have greater risk of exposure for more injury by comparably being in a vulnerable position. 
 

like I said earlier, there isn’t much to be critical of the decisions this Mgmt tam has made, and ones that I was critical of like the Dach trade, for now is looking like a good move (won’t know for sure for another three years). But the decision to keep Slafkovsky just seems dumb.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slafkovski/Guhle seemed to the most prone to getting smoked this year and we saw it happen in Oct-Nov-Dec. and no demotion to Laval for Slafkovski or limiting Guhle's minutes any; also, running Guhle out to play after going to dressing room hurt...followed by Guhle out for maintenance day the next day...twice this year.

Same for Caufield, why did they keep him in the lineup so long?

Kovavacvic has taken some big hits, but is a big body and has AHL experience same as Barron.

Harris seems to have more big hit avoidance (keeps his head up more) but also is banged up at moment.

 

Just seems wrong...or dumb and the opposite of good development plan (if is one?) for the kids. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Commandant said:

No 18 year old is ready?

 

Was Crosby not ready? McDavid? 

 

even a level down from that Matthews? MacKinnon? etc....

 

 

The idea that every prospect has the same path is just false. 

 

I never said anyone had to follow the same path. None of those players success would have been hampered by NOT being in the NHL at 18 years old. Nothing proves a point like picking the .05% of draft picks that are successful at 18yo.🙄

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, hab29RETIRED said:

I’d agree that prospects all have different paths. There is a HUGE difference between playing can’t miss highly touted expected to be generational players that are 18 years old vs a Slafkovsky- who we still don’t whether he is the best player in his draft class.

 

I’ve liked almost every other move this Mgmt team has made, but absolutely hated Slafkovsky given more than his 9 game dress rehearsal, as well as him not being loaned out for the world juniors.

 

There’s always the don’t worry Joe Thornton argument where in his first year, he wasn’t even the best 18 year old picked from his draft on his own team, but went on to have a hall of fame career. But important note was that most of those hall of fame credentials came from the team he was traded to.

 

I think the VAST MAJORITY of 18 year olds can benefit from further development. What I absolutely hated was unlike CHL players where you only have one option, NHL or juniors, the habs had four options.

1) Europe - can’t control or influence his development.

2) CHL - can’t control or influence his development, but allow him to dominate hole learning the North American game.

3) Laval - learn the North American game, and be a pro, while having greater control of his development.

4) NHL - most amount of control over his development - whether he is ready or not - which he clearly didn’t looked like he belonged most nights.

 

My preferred choice oils have been #2, than #3. Unless you have a can’t miss guy, it seems stupid not only rushing him, but also wasting a year of his entry level contract. 
 

We already rushed other guys who weren’t the consensus best options at where he were picked in Galchenyuk, and KK (not going with Hughes or Tkachuk is looking extremely stupid), in an attempt to finally get a centre.
 

Slafkovsky has a lot of promise, and I really hope he pan out and becomes the best player in his draft class, but right now the decision to rush him looks extremely bad and stupid.

 

Joe thornton was putting up big numbers in boston too.  Not all his credentials are in San Jose.

 

Yes his rookie season sucked but he was regularly a ppg player in boston and even had a 100 point season there.  He was on his way to a HOF career before leaving boston.  And this was the dead puck era.

 

What players like Chara, Thornton, Carey Price, and others show is that if you have the talent you can overcome being rushed.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, huzer said:

 

I never said anyone had to follow the same path. None of those players success would have been hampered by NOT being in the NHL at 18 years old. Nothing proves a point like picking the .05% of draft picks that are successful at 18yo.🙄

 

My point is if a player is ready, why hold them back.

 

And yes its rare.

 

But you said no 18 year old should be in the NHL and thats not true

 

There are typically one or two a year and they are ready.

 

Look at Dahlin, hes another who people said was rushed but where is he now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I can see, all this discussion about ruining players by rushing them into the NHL is just conformation bias. 

 

  Every player who doesn't spend time in the minors and then doesn't meet expectations is declared to have been ruined by being rushed.  Maybe these guys were just destined to fail. 

 

How do we know that players who don't meet expectations after years in the minors weren't ruined by being denied the opportunity to play early in the NHL?

 

  Even players like Chara, Thornton, and Carey Price who succeed after being "rushed" are ignored in the analysis.  Maybe some of these players only succeeded because they were "rushed".

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Peter Puck said:

As far as I can see, all this discussion about ruining players by rushing them into the NHL is just conformation bias. 

 

  Every player who doesn't spend time in the minors and then doesn't meet expectations is declared to have been ruined by being rushed.  Maybe these guys were just destined to fail. 

 

How do we know that players who don't meet expectations after years in the minors weren't ruined by being denied the opportunity to play early in the NHL?

 

  Even players like Chara, Thornton, and Carey Price who succeed after being "rushed" are ignored in the analysis.  Maybe some of these players only succeeded because they were "rushed".

 

 

Exactly.  

 

We are doing a look at prospect development at LWOS.  Have looked at, at least 50-60 first rounders over the last ten years.

 

Thing is... early NHL ice time shows a strong correlation to career success.

 

Maybe thats cause those players earned the ice time at a young age or maybe its cause the ice time helped them develop, its hard to say what is causation or not.  But the thing we dont see is eatly nhl ice time ruining players.  That part can be ruled out 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Commandant said:

 

Exactly.  

 

We are doing a look at prospect development at LWOS.  Have looked at, at least 50-60 first rounders over the last ten years.

 

Thing is... early NHL ice time shows a strong correlation to career success.

 

Maybe thats cause those players earned the ice time at a young age or maybe its cause the ice time helped them develop, its hard to say what is causation or not.  But the thing we dont see is eatly nhl ice time ruining players.  That part can be ruled out 

 

 

There’s a difference between players earning ice time and a spot and it being to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the most part agree about never bringing up an 18 y/o, unless it means playing them severely below their level in Junior- a la McDavid and Crosby in their draft +1.

 

Hughes was talking about how this was purely a development year for Slaf tho, and that he didn't wanna send him down because then the results would guide his play rather than the process, which they wanted to significantly alter. What if they send him to Laval next year for the majority of the season?

 

To me that's not rushing a prospect. If they do that they would be forgiven, and if I'm not mistaken they would be granted a slide year on his entry level contract if he plays less than 9 NHL games as he's still under 20 at the start of the year

Edited by Peterpuck
poorly worded
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Peterpuck said:

To me that's not rushing a prospect. If they do that they would be forgiven, and if I'm not mistaken they would be granted a slide year on his entry level contract if he plays less than 9 NHL games as he's still under 20 at the start of the year

 

I'm not 100% sure on this as there isn't much precedent but I believe once a contract formally starts, the slide year can no longer happen.  The accrued season element (less than 40 GP on the active roster = no accrued season towards free agency) would still be in play though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, if they draft Mitchkov, at least he will have couple more years to mature in the KHL before suiting up in NHL and would be no chance of rushing him as 18 year old. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Prime Minister Koivu said:

This guy was gimped by Ducharme but he is a case of a young prospect that was simply ready

 

After 2 full years in the NCAA post draft, yes he was, when he was 20 years old.

Same for Gallagher; 2 full WHL seasons post draft + 1/2 season in the AHL before suiting up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, DON said:

After 2 full years in the NCAA post draft, yes he was, when he was 20 years old.

Same for Gallagher; 2 full WHL seasons post draft + 1/2 season in the AHL before suiting up.


Lol yeah this doesn’t fit your criteria of discussion at all. He wasn’t 18 and the AHL time I didn’t consider because it wasn’t for development per se. Ducharme leaves and the kid scores and never looks back. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Prime Minister Koivu said:


Lol yeah this doesn’t fit your criteria of discussion at all. He wasn’t 18 and the AHL time I didn’t consider because it wasn’t for development per se. Ducharme leaves and the kid scores and never looks back. 

 

If we are only talking 18 year olds than many dont fit the criteria... mete doesnt fit... and a bunch of others that people say the Habs have rushed.  Price doesnt fit either. 

 

The only ones who do are KK and Slaf.

 

Even Galchenyuk had half a season of OHL at 18 due to the lockout.

 

League wide we are talking 2-4 guys a year who are in the league at 18 in their d+1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/17/2023 at 9:02 AM, DON said:

Is all kinds of talk about "NOT" rushing prospects, that is about it, it seems? 

And look at Habs sickbay?

Why do they run Guhle back out there in 3rd period of a blowout game, after already getting hit hard 3 times and trip to dressing room (because he said "I am good to go coach!"?)

 

 

https://www.habseyesontheprize.com/2023/1/28/23575711/rushing-prospects-is-a-bad-idea

 

:wall:

I think your issue with the Guhle injury is not a rushing prospects thing.

 

Guhle is 21. Injuries would happen at the AHL level too. This issue is a 'play through it' culture issue in hockey generally.

 

Slaflovsky in the NHL at 18 and getting rocked repeatedly because he doesn't skate with his head up... Ends up injured long term... That's a rushing prospect issue.

 

Let him learn that at the AHL level against slower guys... Not at NHL speed.

  • Like 1
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...