Free Rakell

[Kalv]

/shrug. Lindholm is built like a man already. I don't think there's a magic neck exercise you can do to make concussions go away. If there were, why would they wait to do it? Why wouldn't it be part of the standard workout regimen?

Furthermore Lindholm wasn't injured by a goon, he was injured by a doosh who took advantage of his not paying attention. Judging by what I've seen stocking the rosters of Detroit, Vancouver, and Nashville over the years, there are no shortage of d-bags in the SEL.

Magic exercise? Haha, no, but yu build that area up to prevent head injuries. Goon or not a goon, the game is much more physical in NA. Possibility of getting injury is everywhere, even eating pancakes, as we know, but you try to avoid those situations.

Right, nothing to suggest he was physically ready... except for his play in the AHL. Lindholm didn't have issues physically in the AHL. He wasn't losing board battles, or getting overpowered in front of the net. Lindholm wasn't just holding his own, Kalvin.

I have a real problem with your assumption that Lindholm's concussion is evidence that he wasn't physically ready. Sidney Crosby spent the last couple of seasons fighting concussions. Was he not physically ready? Giroux, Perron, Pronger, M. Richards, Letang all had concussions. Hell, Pronger will probably never play again. Does that mean they weren't physically ready?

I didn`t watched more than 10 gamess in the AHL and he did looked good, at times. The body of a 18 yo isn`t devloped for the physicaluity of a AHL even if he looks good battling for puck, etc. Again, i don`t think thjat the fact the 2 youngest AHL players are injured, is coincidence. Take that as a proof i guess.
Of course there were bad luck involved for Lindholms injuries, but i do think we could, and should, prevent that.

As i said - being ''physically ready'' doesn`t mean yu won`t get an injury but that you`re less likely to get one.

 

[The Midnight Burrito]

Magic exercise? Haha, no, but yu build that area up to prevent head injuries. Goon or not a goon, the game is much more physical in NA. Possibility of getting injury is everywhere, even eating pancakes, as we know, but you try to avoid those situations.**

**Within reason.

Which we seem to disagree on. He needs to adjust to rougher play eventually. At some point the benefits in so-called safer development are outweighed by diminishing returns in staying in a league that has little left to teach you, and it's a judgment call for all involved. I think you go too far when you say teenagers should never play in the AHL.

 

[Dr Johnny Fever]

Since when is a 40 point rookie season nothing to write home about?

Out of context I will grant you it looks good. But, when it came with some very poor defense (including being man handled by bigger stronger guys) and was then followed up with a less than inspiring 29 pt 2nd year it's hard to say that keeping him up was absolutely the right thing for his development.

I'm not at all down on the guy but I'm really tired of hearing how so many guys should be rushed straight to the NHL. The fact he survived his first two years is a testament to his raw talent more than anything else. It in no way proves playing in the NHL at 18 was the best move for his development.

 

[Sojourn]

I didn`t watched more than 10 gamess in the AHL and he did looked good, at times. The body of a 18 yo isn`t devloped for the physicaluity of a AHL even if he looks good battling for puck, etc. Again, i don`t think thjat the fact the 2 youngest AHL players are injured, is coincidence. Take that as a proof i guess.
Of course there were bad luck involved for Lindholms injuries, but i do think we could, and should, prevent that.

As i said - being ''physically ready'' doesn`t mean yu won`t get an injury but that you`re less likely to get one.

"At times" he looked good? You realize the general consensus among most of us who watched him in Norfolk is that he quickly became the best defenseman, right? That's quite a bit more than being good "at times".

Except it isn't proof. You're drawing conclusions based on very little evidence, and a whole lot of assumptions. You basically already decided that he wasn't physically ready, and then you tried to fit the evidence together to support your belief. We aren't talking about Lindholm getting injured because of a muscle pull, or a broken bone. Had that been the case, I might accept your premise. This is a concussion we're talking about, and I have yet to see any evidence that suggests there is any way to be physically ready to avoid them. If it were that simple, don't you think every player would be going out of their way to avoid it? You know some of the best ways we've found to reduce concussions? Better helmets, and mouthguards. So, unless Lindholm's physical readiness extends to his equipment, your argument is seriously lacking in any kind of evidence.

 

[Exit Dose]

Out of context I will grant you it looks good. But, when it came with some very poor defense (including being man handled by bigger stronger guys) and was then followed up with a less than inspiring 29 pt 2nd year it's hard to say that keeping him up was absolutely the right thing for his development.

You mean he had a season like most rookie defensemen have. You're reaching.

I'm not at all down on the guy but I'm really tired of hearing how so many guys should be rushed straight to the NHL. The fact he survived his first two years is a testament to his raw talent more than anything else. It in no way proves playing in the NHL at 18 was the best move for his development.

Just like you are when you characterize the current situation as such.

 

[Dr Johnny Fever]

You mean he had a season like most rookie defensemen have. You're reaching.


Just like you are when you characterize the current situation as such.

I don't want to get into a long debate that can't be proven either way. But I will just say this...

A player who is talented enough to have a great career in the NHL (or any pro sport for that matter) will have that career even if it might start one year later than it could have. The one year delay will not harm him and might even help, contrary to popular belief. OTOH, some guys with talent who get rushed, get in over their head and never recover from the beating their confidence takes and end up with far less of a career than they might have had with a little more patience.

I would much prefer erroring on the side of caution, even if that isn't a popular theme here where people can't wait to speculate which current 16 year old will be skating with Perry and Getzlaf in 3 years.

 

[Paul4587]

I would much prefer erroring on the side of caution, even if that isn't a popular theme here where people can't wait to speculate which current 16 year old will be skating with Perry and Getzlaf in 3 years.

I agree with this but I will say that there are exceptions and I feel that Fowler was probably one of the rare exceptions. I have no issue with him making the team at 18. But I'm a huge Fowler fan so I might be biased.

 

[Sojourn]

Sometimes I think Paul might be a separate personality I have.

 

[Exit Dose]

I don't want to get into a long debate that can't be proven either way. But I will just say this...

A player who is talented enough to have a great career in the NHL (or any pro sport for that matter) will have that career even if it might start one year later than it could have. The one year delay will not harm him and might even help, contrary to popular belief. OTOH, some guys with talent who get rushed, get in over their head and never recover from the beating their confidence takes and end up with far less of a career than they might have had with a little more patience.

I would much prefer erroring on the side of caution, even if that isn't a popular theme here where people can't wait to speculate which current 16 year old will be skating with Perry and Getzlaf in 3 years.

I like how if you go around to the boards that have the ability to watch what happens in Juniors, you don't see them treating that league like some mythical vision quest. I think a bit of transparency in the process would clear up a lot of these arguments.

 

[Dr Johnny Fever]

I agree with this but I will say that there are exceptions and I feel that Fowler was probably one of the rare exceptions. I have no issue with him making the team at 18. But I'm a huge Fowler fan so I might be biased.

Oh yeah, I agree that sometimes it can be the right move which is why I said you can't really prove it one way or the other. And I agree it still might have been the right move with Fowler. It just isn't a given. But it seems to be the popular notion around here for everybody now that BB is using the regular season for training camp evaluations.

 

[Dr Johnny Fever]

I don't understand this. When people say of a given player "he has nothing left to prove" they are by default saying it is a negative to keep the player down.

I like how if you go around to the boards that have the ability to watch what happens in Juniors, you don't see them treating that league like some mythical vision quest. I think a bit of transparency in the process would clear up a lot of these arguments.

I don't read all the other boards as much as I read this one. My comments are mainly in reference to what I read here.

 

[HanSolo]

Oh yeah, I agree that sometimes it can be the right move which is why I said you can't really prove it one way or the other. And I agree it still might have been the right move with Fowler. It just isn't a given. But it seems to be the popular notion around here for everybody now that BB is using the regular season for training camp evaluations.

If this was true, Rakell wouldn't have ridden the bench for what? 5 games?

 

[Dr Johnny Fever]

If this was true, Rakell wouldn't have ridden the bench for what? 5 games?

Well, Rakell riding the pine lately seems to be a question to everybody. And that of course is because after game #5 they have to make a decision about him. But he played early along with Holland (admittedly sparingly), then Sami and Etem came up for their turns when most folks thought they weren't ready. And you could maybe say Palmieri although he most certainly was the most qualified rookie to get playing time.

I think a lot of that would have worked itself out in preseason games if we had the usual 4 or 5.

 

[Exit Dose]

I don't understand this. When people say of a given player "he has nothing left to prove" they are by default saying it is a negative to keep the player down.

I was taking issue with the way your phrasing and characterization of the people that don't agree with you. I feel that you are lumping in the people that irrationally feel that every prospect needs to play now with the people that feel that we have prospects that might be ready to do so.

I don't read all the other boards as much as I read this one. My comments are mainly in reference to what I read here.

It's not the reading of other boards that's the problem. It's the lack of familiarity with what actually happens at the developmental levels that I think is the problem. Players are not learning their position at that level to the extent that I see people assuming that they do. I see a lot of misconceptions that are all too often backed with maxims or glance at HockeyDB. There is a hell of a lot more nuance to the process than that.

 

[Exit Dose]

Well, Rakell riding the pine lately seems to be a question to everybody. And that of course is because after game #5 they have to make a decision about him. But he played early along with Holland (admittedly sparingly), then Sami and Etem came up for their turns when most folks thought they weren't ready. And you could maybe say Palmieri although he most certainly was the most qualified rookie to get playing time.

I think a lot of that would have worked itself out in preseason games if we had the usual 4 or 5.

The problem is that you can't get a perfect read on a player when they are at the lower levels. Sometimes you need to see them at the NHL level(practice/pre-season/regular season), before you get the right handle on where they are at. For example, Palmieri looks more focused and dangerous than he did in the 'A', the same goes for Etem. In Palmieri's case he looks sure to stick around. In Etem's case I think it's still debatable whether he sticks around for the entire season.

In Rakell's case he looks close. His skills seem about right to make the jump, but the physical tools don't look like they're quite there at this moment. This is the reason why I don't care that they kept him around a little longer before what seems to be a likely return to Plymouth.

 

[Dr Johnny Fever]

I was taking issue with the way your phrasing and characterization of the people that don't agree with you. I feel that you are lumping in the people that irrationally feel that every prospect needs to play now with the people that feel that we have prospects that might be ready to do so.

There is a lot of irrationality on all of HF including these boards. I don't view all opinions equally. But there is a general theme here that every shiny new object is the next best thing and ready to be a star. And most of it is pretty unsupported. Perhaps you felt lumped in there when you shouldn't have been. I'm sorry if it came across that way.

It's not the reading of other boards that's the problem. It's the lack of familiarity with what actually happens at the developmental levels that I think is the problem. Players are not learning their position at that level to the extent that I see people assuming that they do. I see a lot of misconceptions that are all too often backed with maxims or glance at HockeyDB. There is a hell of a lot more nuance to the process than that.

Well, that sounds more like you are agreeing that too many players get rushed, which is the gist of my whole position on young players in general.

 

[Mr Rogers]

Maybe RR will play against DRW and they'll leave him in Plymouth after the game

 

[Exit Dose]

Well, that sounds more like you are agreeing that too many players get rushed, which is the gist of my whole position on young players in general.

Rushed is a bit of loaded term, and it's not what I meant at all.

 

[Kalv]

**Within reason.

Which we seem to disagree on. He needs to adjust to rougher play eventually. At some point the benefits in so-called safer development are outweighed by diminishing returns in staying in a league that has little left to teach you, and it's a judgment call for all involved. I think you go too far when you say teenagers should never play in the AHL.

In Lindholms case - he didn`t proved anything in that league. He didn`t even played. Rogle advanced to the SEL.
SEL wouldn`t teach anything for Lindholm? Well, i hardly disagree with that.

"At times" he looked good? You realize the general consensus among most of us who watched him in Norfolk is that he quickly became the best defenseman, right? That's quite a bit more than being good "at times".

Except it isn't proof. You're drawing conclusions based on very little evidence, and a whole lot of assumptions. You basically already decided that he wasn't physically ready, and then you tried to fit the evidence together to support your belief. We aren't talking about Lindholm getting injured because of a muscle pull, or a broken bone. Had that been the case, I might accept your premise. This is a concussion we're talking about, and I have yet to see any evidence that suggests there is any way to be physically ready to avoid them. If it were that simple, don't you think every player would be going out of their way to avoid it? You know some of the best ways we've found to reduce concussions? Better helmets, and mouthguards. So, unless Lindholm's physical readiness extends to his equipment, your argument is seriously lacking in any kind of evidence.

Well, talking about your ''proof'' - i didn`t saw a lot from your side either.
I said you can reduce the possibility of a concussion, not completely avoid them, you`re just making stuff up.

And like i said - seeing how the young guys gets injured in AHL, i don`t think it`s just a coincidence.

 

[JabbaJabba]

They should try Rakell with Ryan and Selänne. Just think about it:

Palmieri-Getzlaf-Perry
Rakell-Ryan-Selänne
Winnik-Koivu-Cogliano
Beleskey-Bonino-Etem
Staubitz

Although, I don't know if Rakell should play the center because he's pretty good at taking faceoffs, but Ryan seems to do well in the center spot too. I'm afraid that he becomes invisible again if he plays the wing.

 

[TheFlyingV]

Rakell has been sent back to Plymouth.

ANA informed Rickard Rakell after last night's game vs CHI that he's returning to Plymouth of the OHL.

https://twitter.com/TSNBobMcKenzie/status/301700155026063360

Can confirm @TSNBobMcKenzie report that Ducks have sent C/RW Rickard Rakell back to Plymouth Whalers of the OHL.

https://twitter.com/icemancometh/status/301703040258428928

 

[The Midnight Burrito]

He can be proud. He came damn close to making it.

 

[Lord Flashheart]

Good, best scenario for him as he needs to develop where he can log a lot of minutes while having an idea what is necessary at NHL level. Now bring up Maroon/Holland.

 

[Zegs2sendhelp]

sad to see him go, hopefully he is back next season with vengeance

 

[OCSportsfan]

Good, best scenario for him as he needs to develop where he can log a lot of minutes while having an idea what is necessary at NHL level. Now bring up Maroon/Holland.

I really think it depends on what they do what they do with Bonino.

If they keep him as 4th line center, then maroon will be brought up(hopefully). If they move him between Ryan and Selanne then it will be Holland so he can play 4th line center.

Also, I am not sure if Etem is ready yet. I really am impressed with him so far, but I dont think they have a spot for him yet, unless it is the 4th line wing with Bonino. In that case, I would expect a trade to fill in the top 6.