If he is such a damn certainty to be able to stick as a 3C at 19 and a certainty to grow into more... why in the hell were people deriding this pick so much?
I lose track on this... am I supposed to hate Rasmussen because he's just an unskilled, net front big guy? Or is he unreservedly capable of being a 3C in the NHL just based on his WHL performance?
All I am saying is make him prove it in international tournaments and in camp. Make him earn it like Larkin did. If he's that same level of "I don't belong in this league" that Larkin was in his AHL playoffs and "I do belong in this league" when he went stride for stride with Anze Kopitar, by all means make him a 3C.
I just don't have any expectation that he's going to do that. I certainly give him a shot in camp to prove me wrong, but to steal a Babcock-ism... He's gotta grab that piece of cheese and take it. He has to show the org that he can. I am not interesting in talking about giving him a 3C slot until he has that camp that makes it impossible to send him back. To make the pros, I want a young guy like that to CLEARLY not have anything to learn at the lower league... which to this point Michael Rasmussen has not shown beyond any doubt.
The way I see it, I am not interested in watching a 19 year old make flailing, positional type mistakes in the NHL, not when he could be getting direct coaching, oodles of playing time, and such out of the spot light. I also, even though he does not have documented issues with it like Mantha or AA did, do not want a prospect getting hurried up to the big time to see other guys slack off or play poorly and wonder why his ice time is cut and not Justin Abdelkader's or Luke Glendening's.
Hell, optimal world, everyone wants Blashill, Holland, the whole shot gone. I'd rather not have a 19 year old kid up in the big leagues on a really crappy team with no stability anywhere.