Matt Hendricks signs 1yr contract with Jets.

[Whileee]

Which instincts were the Moose relying on when they gave Peluso and Strait regular shifts on the power play?

I didn't watch them. How many shifts did they get? I suppose Peluso was a "net front presence".

My guess is that the coach was: a) trying to win, or b) sending a message to young players. Why do you think the coach played them?

All the more reason not to sign vets that the coach might use to steal ice-time from good young prospects.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Winning AHL teams usually rely on veterans in key roles. That was Zinger's point when he said that if you give an AHL coach a bunch of strong vets, his competitive instinct will be to use the vets instead of the young prospects in critical roles.

The Moose of the last couple of years have had enough vets - and they have had major roles. They haven't been very good though.

There seems to be a fallacy that the Moose must be bad in order to develop NHL players. That is ridiculous. Are no other teams developing talent? Are the Jets the only NHL team using the A as a development league? If our prospect pool is so strong and so deep we should be able to be competitive.

 

[Whileee]

The Moose of the last couple of years have had enough vets - and they have had major roles. They haven't been very good though.

There seems to be a fallacy that the Moose must be bad in order to develop NHL players. That is ridiculous. Are no other teams developing talent? Are the Jets the only NHL team using the A as a development league? If our prospect pool is so strong and so deep we should be able to be competitive.

Nobody said that the Moose "must be bad" in order to develop NHL players. Instead, it has been postulated that good prospects can't be developed as well on a poor AHL team. I think there is evidence that poor AHL teams can develop good NHL prospects (e.g. Morrissey, Connor, Roslovic).

Even very good young prospects can struggle at times at the AHL level. If the focus is on winning, coaches might be tempted to play vets over the young prospects. That's the contention from Zinger.

 

[Bob E]

We need a poll on how many games Hedrick plays. I say 10 to 15.

My prediction:

Unless he's a complete flop in training camp (which could happen) I'd say more than 30 but less than 40 games with the Jets.

Injuries will happen and PMo will have him in the lineup against bigger teams in the West. He'll get less than 10 mins/game as will his linemates. He'll play more against teams with a strong power play. He'll be inserted when the "room is too quiet", during the dog days of winter.

Lord helps us.

 

[surixon]

The Moose of the last couple of years have had enough vets - and they have had major roles. They haven't been very good though.

There seems to be a fallacy that the Moose must be bad in order to develop NHL players. That is ridiculous. Are no other teams developing talent? Are the Jets the only NHL team using the A as a development league? If our prospect pool is so strong and so deep we should be able to be competitive.

I agree with this. I think there is a happy middle ground still to be found. See the Marlies a couple of years ago, they had elite youth and vets and had some excellent seasons. The young players turned out fine as well.

I don't think Zinger has found the correct mix yet. I think the forward vets have been fine and Moose haven't performed terribly from that perspective imo. Where he's dropped the ball is in how he's assembled the defense. He's largely filled it with defense first mediocre AHL dmen that all seemingly have great difficulty moving the puck. The Moose transition game threats few years has been laughably bad and that inturn has hurt the offense.

I have some hope that by adding Niku and Poolman along with Nogier being another year older that the transition play will be much improved and that will lead to less time in the dzone and more time in the offensive end.

 

[Daximus]

I wonder if Hendricks is meant to be a failsafe to a 4th line. As in if one of the young guys doesn't run with a bottom 6 C (Roslovic, Copp, Petan) position then Hendricks comes in as 4C and Lowry moves up to 3C.

As far as I'm concerned he is only here for his faceoff ability in that regard. Hopefully it doesn't come to that and he spends most of his time here in the PB or on the moose.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Nobody said that the Moose "must be bad" in order to develop NHL players. Instead, it has been postulated that good prospects can't be developed as well on a poor AHL team. I think there is evidence that poor AHL teams can develop good NHL prospects (e.g. Morrissey, Connor, Roslovic).

Even very good young prospects can struggle at times at the AHL level. If the focus is on winning, coaches might be tempted to play vets over the young prospects. That's the contention from Zinger.

That is a completely unanswerable question unless you can somehow develop some group of players on a bad team and then turn back the clock and do it again on a good one. But you are still using an absolute when you say 'can't'.

I think they will develop better in a winning atmosphere. Winning breeds winning. Can I prove it? Of course not. How much better? No idea. We may need to measure it in iotas, but more than zero.

 

[Whileee]

That is a completely unanswerable question unless you can somehow develop some group of players on a bad team and then turn back the clock and do it again on a good one. But you are still using an absolute when you say 'can't'.

I think they will develop better in a winning atmosphere. Winning breeds winning. Can I prove it? Of course not. How much better? No idea. We may need to measure it in iotas, but more than zero.

I don't disagree, but based on the original premise the contrast in development contexts is...

A. Play a big role on a poor team.

vs.

B. Play a lesser role on a good team.

I don't think anyone would argue that playing an equivalent role on a good team is superior. The issue raised by Zinger was that if you have a bunch of good experienced vets AHL coaches are tempted to reduce the role of young prospects. That's why they take a different approach now than when they were the Canucks' farm team.

 

[mcpw]

I don't disagree, but based on the original premise the contrast in development contexts is...

A. Play a big role on a poor team.

vs.

B. Play a lesser role on a good team.

I don't think anyone would argue that playing an equivalent role on a good team is superior. The issue raised by Zinger was that if you have a bunch of good experienced vets AHL coaches are tempted to reduce the role of young prospects. That's why they take a different approach now than when they were the Canucks' farm team.

2015-16 Moose D (age) GP:
MacWilliam (25) 72
Kichton (23) 68
Melchiori (23) 62
Morrissey (20) 57
Kostalek (20) 52
Stoykewych (23) 47
Harstad (23) 26
Harrison (32) 18
Serville (22) 15

2016-17 Moose D (age) GP:
Czuczman (25) 76
Stoykewych (24) 72
Kichton (24) 63
Kostalek (21) 60
Nogier (20) 60
Strait (28) 58
Melchiori (24) 40
Baker (25) 15

This list has one legitimate D prospect (Morrissey), one more D prospect if I'm very generous (Nogier), and two more D "prospects" for the 15-16 season only if I'm extremely generous (15-16 Kostalek and 15-16 Kichton). Among the other guys, there's maybe one top-4 AHL defenseman (Czuczman). The rest are just bad players, even at the AHL level (including Melchiori).

It might be good to have prospects play important roles instead of veterans. But the Moose didn't have a lot of D prospects, and they didn't bring in any good veterans. As a result, players who are bad at the AHL level played top4 minutes for the Moose. This is bad.

 

[garret9]

I think Toronto does a good job in mixing the two.

 

[DashingDane]

Sounds like he is confirmed for a bottom 6 according to the Chevy interview. I'm starting to be convinced he isn't here for a role on the Moose

 

[Whileee]

2015-16 Moose D (age) GP:
MacWilliam (25) 72
Kichton (23) 68
Melchiori (23) 62
Morrissey (20) 57
Kostalek (20) 52
Stoykewych (23) 47
Harstad (23) 26
Harrison (32) 18
Serville (22) 15

2016-17 Moose D (age) GP:
Czuczman (25) 76
Stoykewych (24) 72
Kichton (24) 63
Kostalek (21) 60
Nogier (20) 60
Strait (28) 58
Melchiori (24) 40
Baker (25) 15

This list has one legitimate D prospect (Morrissey), one more D prospect if I'm very generous (Nogier), and two more D "prospects" for the 15-16 season only if I'm extremely generous (15-16 Kostalek and 15-16 Kichton). Among the other guys, there's maybe one top-4 AHL defenseman (Czuczman). The rest are just bad players, even at the AHL level (including Melchiori).

It might be good to have prospects play important roles instead of veterans. But the Moose didn't have a lot of D prospects, and they didn't bring in any good veterans. As a result, players who are bad at the AHL level played top4 minutes for the Moose. This is bad.

I agree with this. The Jets/Moose haven't done a good job bringing in talent. That's not really the point I was addressing.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

I don't disagree, but based on the original premise the contrast in development contexts is...

A. Play a big role on a poor team.

vs.

B. Play a lesser role on a good team.

I don't think anyone would argue that playing an equivalent role on a good team is superior. The issue raised by Zinger was that if you have a bunch of good experienced vets AHL coaches are tempted to reduce the role of young prospects. That's why they take a different approach now than when they were the Canucks' farm team.

There is a difference between a 'bunch' of good, experienced vets and a few. He was comparing today's Moose, owned by an NHL team and the previous incarnation merely associated with an NHL team. I'm comparing the Moose of the last couple of years with a decent AHL team. I hope Zinger can find a better balance.

 

[Whileee]

There is a difference between a 'bunch' of good, experienced vets and a few. He was comparing today's Moose, owned by an NHL team and the previous incarnation merely associated with an NHL team. I'm comparing the Moose of the last couple of years with a decent AHL team. I hope Zinger can find a better balance.

I agree with better balance. I'm not sure the approach they've taken is hampering development, as has been suggested.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

I agree with better balance. I'm not sure the approach they've taken is hampering development, as has been suggested.

Like I said before, impossible to prove, one way or another. I doubt it is helping though.

 

[surixon]

Like I said before, impossible to prove, one way or another. I doubt it is helping though.

I don't think it will have any effect on the elite talent such as the JoMo's, Connor's and even Roslovic's of the world. Where I think it hurts is with the B prospects who unlike the ones listed above aren't ready/able to immediately come in and contribute or dominate. In those cases having a real strong veteran partner to lean on would be incredibly useful. I think a guy like Kostelek who had some potential coming from junior would have benefited greatly from playing with a good partner. The same thing goes for our the Lemiux's, DeLeo's of the world up front.

 

[Jetsfan79]

So what does everyone think would of been worse/better - The Hendricks 1 year deal or extending Thorburn for a year?

 

[Blue Shakehead]

So what does everyone think would of been worse/better - The Hendricks 1 year deal or extending Thorburn for a year?

That's like asking if we want to eat a **** sandwich or if we would rather have a piece of **** on our hotdog?

 

[Oilpeg]

Anybody post Hendy running Scheif and then Buff throwing him around yet? Hopefully they have a nice chat about this one in training camp.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcLwLpS312M

 

[Whileee]

That's like asking if we want to eat a **** sandwich or if we would rather have a piece of **** on our hotdog?

Well, Thorbs got a two-year deal with the Blues, Hawks re-signed Tootoo, Preds acquired Cody McLeod.... so maybe things will even out a bit...

 

[Whileee]

So what does everyone think would of been worse/better - The Hendricks 1 year deal or extending Thorburn for a year?

Signing Thorbs for two more years would be worse... (hello Blues)...

 

[DashingDane]

So what does everyone think would of been worse/better - The Hendricks 1 year deal or extending Thorburn for a year?

I would have honestly preferred Thorburn. Really love the guy, just wish he was good at hockey

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

I don't think it will have any effect on the elite talent such as the JoMo's, Connor's and even Roslovic's of the world. Where I think it hurts is with the B prospects who unlike the ones listed above aren't ready/able to immediately come in and contribute or dominate. In those cases having a real strong veteran partner to lean on would be incredibly useful. I think a guy like Kostelek who had some potential coming from junior would have benefited greatly from playing with a good partner. The same thing goes for our the Lemiux's, DeLeo's of the world up front.

Yes - but that is a slightly different effect than that of playing on a winning team, with a winning attitude. That winning atmosphere is an intangible. Of course, so is good mentoring.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

That's like asking if we want to eat a **** sandwich or if we would rather have a piece of **** on our hotdog?

I was trying to think of the right way to answer that question. Now I won't bother.

 

[Eyeseeing]

That's like asking if we want to eat a **** sandwich or if we would rather have a piece of **** on our hotdog?

Lol what if.....
We extend him next year ????