They had a plan that Sprong would play in the AHL for the year. They would have evaluated that throughout the year. They didn’t just say he should be in the AHL all year and that’s it.
I don’t see how you could say his development was over in the AHL as he was getting scratched at different times. Some of it was to watch from the stands so some staff could explain the things he needs to be better at. That should be seen as a good thing.
JR saying he will be on the team next season doesn’t mean he will be. Sprong still has to do the right things in camp. Which he probably will and will play next season unless he’s traded.
I was referring to the Pens not icing Sprong in the playoffs. I should have been more specific. My point is that once WBS was eliminated, the "AHL is better for his development" angle doesn't fly because it's unavailable.
By then, he was clearly developed enough for JR to essentially say that an NHL spot is his to lose next fall, which means he's either leapfrogging current Pens forwards or JR is clearing out some dead wood to make room for him. And JR's working with the exact same knowledge of Sprong's performance that Sully was working with when he determined Sprong wasn't good enough to be subbed in for the dead wood.
That cognitive dissonance doesn't sit right with me. He's either looked good enough to play over these guys or he hasn't.
Whether you agree with the logic though is irrelevant, if you get what I mean (and in the nicest possible way).
Does thinking like that explain the two stances? Yes.
Is it possible/probable they were thinking like that? Imo, yes. There's no shortage of thinking like that in pro sports and its consistent with other decisions like sending Jooris back to WBS when he was outperforming every other 4th line plug at the end of the season.
Whether it was a mistake is besides the point of the question you asked - how can Rutherford be so sure if he wasn't judged good enough for the play offs. Tbh... it probably was a mistake, but one I sympathise with. Unit cohesion is probably as important, if not more so, than individual talent at that point. He didn't have that. There's a good chance he'd have done a better job than one of the many, many underperforming wingers despite that, but its not sure.
I'm sure they were thinking like that. I just contend that thinking that way is illogical, and one of the reasons why we're no longer playing. If a prospect is talented enough to make an underperforming player disposable in the fall, then he's talented enough to be subbed in for that same underperforming player in the playoffs.
Sheary struggled all year and his struggles continued throughout the playoffs. When a player's standard has been that low for that long and you have a better option in your back pocket, you either use that option or you're short-changing the team for the sake of familiarity.