Around The NHL #2 - Playoffs?

[_Del_]

I mean everyone in the org that is or has acted like the homeless guy turning down an offered coffee on a 12° morning because he only drinks Starbucks after turning down free food because it isn't steak for a decade or two.

 

[BUX7PHX]

We're so flush with top six talent that we can waste the guys that don't fit our stylistic wish list. Who cares if you can put up 60 points if you don't do it with style...



For the same reason they discarded a previous 3ov player citing those same ridiculous statements. For the same reason an idiot might say Domi is a third line, dime a dozen winger.
They suck at evaluating talent and are extremely short-sighted and narrow-minded and have no clue on how to develop talent or make use of talent that doesn't fit in the extremely narrow field of view provided by their bias-blinders.

Style meaning the methodology in which we attack. It was implying that Strome did not fit the up-tempo attack that Tocchet favored.

 

[BUX7PHX]

You are still not understanding it Del. If we give a player time and he fails to acquire the skills of learning responsible defensive play, board work, etc. - all we have done is promoted solely the positives but not done anything to fix the negatives.

If I didnt know any better it sounds like we are trying to develop players so that they can be well-rounded but then we fail to develop players because we dont put them on the right line. That is what can create problems. Catering only to the good and ignoring the negatives is counter to the development that is expected. You cant have it both ways.

 

[RemoAZ]

We traded for Galchenyuk. He isn't fast. We used our first pick on Hayton. He isn't fast. I don't buy the Strome doesn't fit the system crap. The coach and the GM suck at managing development and personalities, both so important especially for this team to be successful.

 

[hbk]

We traded for Galchenyuk. He isn't fast. We used our first pick on Hayton. He isn't fast. I don't buy the Strome doesn't fit the system crap. The coach and the GM suck at managing development and personalities, both so important especially for this team to be successful.

I've spent the past 4 years watching Strome play. I don't know how to break it to you that he prefers to slow game down. Go back to the draft year threads. It's there.

 

[Jakey53]

I think that the frustrating thing for me in that instance is that if you see the writing is on the wall, to some degree, I would have enough pride in myself to not give anyone the reason to continue to think that way. I know that isn't the easiest thing to do, but I do like to think that if someone has a negative perception of you, whether deserved or undeserved, you are the one who controls the elements that can make that person think that way. I wouldn't want a future team to have this idea that I couldn't fit with the team.

Stylistically, that was probably the bigger issue in terms of how Strome's game played within our system and where there were some issues. Now, the counter-argument is that Chicago hasn't been known as a defensive team in their style, and that is where the situation is murky from an effort level. It seems to point to the idea that the effort level wasn't there, and the trade served as both a fresh start and a wake-up call for the player. Especially because the firing of Q opened the doors for the new coach to kind of experiment around for some time, and maybe even for the entire year. With little pressure on him to completely turn everything around, Colliton is in that position to put Strome in different scenarios that he may not have had the luxury of being put in here. Those comments about Barroway's win now mindset may actually be more of an influence as well and is something that I forgot about.

But yes, if the writing was on the wall, it shouldn't deter someone from then shutting themselves out of opportunities to improve. And that is likely where the "hope" statement by Chayka should be of note. There was hope that he would put the pieces together, and even if the writing was on the wall, coaches down the road in his career are going to be just as focused on improvements to the game. As an example, if he is being relied on to be less of a defensive presence now in Chicago, that doesn't mean that he won't have to face that down the line in due time whether with the Hawks or a different team altogether once free agency or other potential trades hit.

If you have a job you don't like, or don't like your supervisor etc. you can quite. In Strome's case, if this was in fact the case, he couldn't do , so he did the only thing he could. Happens all the time in hockey. I would think Strome, RT and Chayka had discussions about his play, future on this team etc. Stylistically? You are right, he didn't fit or belong with a bunch of slugs. I would have had no problem if Strome started on the fourth line, but given his history of production, don't you think a "smart" coach would a least give Strome a legit shot playing with talent? RT had enough trust in him to play on the second PP. I would think an organization would want to know for sure if he is a bust or not, but we were damn lucky we got a player like Schmaltz in return. It was either Chicago saw something in Strome, or they couldn't find a better deal for Schmaltz. Most times I'am on the organizations side when it comes similar circumstances, like Duke, Turris and there are a few others, but not this time.

 

[Jakey53]

By style we are referring to the way they play the game. Does a player push the play or do he stop and go. The current NHL and is much about a quick transition with emphasis on speed. The wait for a play to develop style isn't as prevalent.

I agree, but I think you are missing the point, well, my point anyway. For any employee to succeed you give him tools to work with, whether it be management type person with potential, or a janitor. Strome has potential and has proven that at lower levels, so why not give him a "raise", show him he is a valuable member of your team, and give him a Keller, Chucky to work with. Now, after the trade and Strome is playing reasonably well, all I hear is that all he has are secondary assists, ( heard that from someone with great hockey knowledge.) or his D is not very good, (again, from someone who I respect.) which is complete garbage. We were damn lucky we got a player like Schmaltz. I don't think Strome will ever live up to a 3OA, but I think he will settle in as a fine 2C.

 

[Jakey53]

I've spent the past 4 years watching Strome play. I don't know how to break it to you that he prefers to slow game down. Go back to the draft year threads. It's there.

Is he slowing the game down playing with Kane? Or is he playing up tempo because of the players he is playing with? Either way, it's working.

 

[Jakey53]

Style meaning the methodology in which we attack. It was implying that Strome did not fit the up-tempo attack that Tocchet favored.

What system does Chicago play?

 

[cobra427]

We traded for Galchenyuk. He isn't fast. We used our first pick on Hayton. He isn't fast. I don't buy the Strome doesn't fit the system crap. The coach and the GM suck at managing development and personalities, both so important especially for this team to be successful.

If you have a job you don't like, or don't like your supervisor etc. you can quite. In Strome's case, if this was in fact the case, he couldn't do , so he did the only thing he could. Happens all the time in hockey. I would think Strome, RT and Chayka had discussions about his play, future on this team etc. Stylistically? You are right, he didn't fit or belong with a bunch of slugs. I would have had no problem if Strome started on the fourth line, but given his history of production, don't you think a "smart" coach would a least give Strome a legit shot playing with talent? RT had enough trust in him to play on the second PP. I would think an organization would want to know for sure if he is a bust or not, but we were damn lucky we got a player like Schmaltz in return. It was either Chicago saw something in Strome, or they couldn't find a better deal for Schmaltz. Most times I'am on the organizations side when it comes similar circumstances, like Duke, Turris and there are a few others, but not this time.

Jakey, I think you are being fooled by the points Strome is getting now by playing with Kane and getting prime minutes. I think he is much like Duke in that he can produce points in the right situation but his overall play will ultimately limit his usage and TOI. I suspect Tocc was more concerned about winning so he didn't play Strome with Keller knowing he would give up on D more than he would get on O. In Chicago, Bowman just hired a new young coach, he didn't hire a Tip or Hitch. The new coach wants to please his boss, so he is feeding Strome prime minutes/players/situations, maybe at the expense of the team. Q didn't do that with Murphy or Duclair.

I think over time, Strome will not be a 1C/2C, and his TOI, line pairings, and usage will go down. Strome isn't all of a sudden magically a 2C or better because Tocc/Chayka are this stupid. Anyone paired with Kane will get more points, its the rest of his play that hasn't changed. Time will tell but thats my take on it.

 

[Jakey53]

You are still not understanding it Del. If we give a player time and he fails to acquire the skills of learning responsible defensive play, board work, etc. - all we have done is promoted solely the positives but not done anything to fix the negatives.

If I didnt know any better it sounds like we are trying to develop players so that they can be well-rounded but then we fail to develop players because we dont put them on the right line. That is what can create problems. Catering only to the good and ignoring the negatives is counter to the development that is expected. You cant have it both ways.

Not many players can do it all. Not one player on our team can or has the ability to do it all, (OEL comes the closest) so why keep pointing fingers at Strome? Bux, your second paragraph doesn't make any sense.

 

[Jakey53]

Jakey, I think you are being fooled by the points Strome is getting now by playing with Kane and getting prime minutes. I think he is much like Duke in that he can produce points in the right situation but his overall play will ultimately limit his usage and TOI. I suspect Tocc was more concerned about winning so he didn't play Strome with Keller knowing he would give up on D more than he would get on O. In Chicago, Bowman just hired a new young coach, he didn't hire a Tip or Hitch. The new coach wants to please his boss, so he is feeding Strome prime minutes/players/situations, maybe at the expense of the team. Q didn't do that with Murphy or Duclair.

I think over time, Strome will not be a 1C/2C, and his TOI, line pairings, and usage will go down. Strome isn't all of a sudden magically a 2C or better because Tocc/Chayka are this stupid. Anyone paired with Kane will get more points, its the rest of his play that hasn't changed. Time will tell but thats my take on it.

That is what I have been saying. Put Strome with talent and see what happens. You keep on coming up with Stome's play on D. It was/is fine. Chicago's new coach wants to win, period. Schmaltz was paired with Kane last year when he got all his points, and here he is mostly paired with Keller or Chucky or both. This year I believe Chicago separated them and Schmaltz fell flat on his face. I wonder why? Schmaltz was put in a position to succeed last year and he responded. I don't know what will happen to Strome down the line, the ONLY thing I wanted was him to be given a fair shot and he wasn't. Most of us knew he wasn't going to get one because RT did not like him. Like you said time will tell.

 

[Bonsai Tree]

You Strome haters always come back and talk about his D and play away from the puck, which was fine by the way, is the reason he didn't get top minutes. What a bunch of BS. The reason he never got top line minutes is RT, and RT only. How can any coach justify and put Cousins on the first line, or play Archibald higher than the fourth line and saddle Strome to the fourth line, who has produced at every level he has played. What a moron of a coach, but at least we got a very good player in Schmaltz.

I don't hate Strome. I am disappointed in Strome. He isn't playing like a 3rd overall pick for Chicago either. He is playing like a late 1st, early 2nd pick. I am deeply disappointed in Maloney and his scouts for drafting him so high. Him and Perlini for Schmaltz looks like an even trade to me.
Had he stayed on this team, he would have spent the first 5-10 years of his career, (however long he remained a Coyote), looked at as a disappointment despite being a good player. This would have been a weight hung around both Strome and the organization's necks. We did ourselves and Strome a favor by trading him. In Chicago, he's just a player, not a waste of a 3rd overall pick.

 

[BUX7PHX]

Not many players can do it all. Not one player on our team can or has the ability to do it all, (OEL comes the closest) so why keep pointing fingers at Strome? Bux, your second paragraph doesn't make any sense.

It doesn't make sense b/c that is what some individuals are arguing.

People are saying that the staff does not know how to develop players properly. The fact is that 90-95% of development is done to that point. Making consistent smart decisions and playing at the NHL level speed in both physical and mental aspects are what needs refining in most players below the age of 24. Some get it right away. Some take time. We were in the latter with Strome b/c we actually said that we didn't want to saddle him with being just the guy who can help offensively, but then doesn't progress defensively. That is why you saw him on the lower lines - the offensive skill is there and maybe could have been better with more offensive talent around him. But we also needed to make sure that he was developing properly on the defensive side as well, which is why we would tend to match him up on those lower lines so he wouldn't be overwhelmed with the speed and decision-making process.

In other words, we were taking the time to develop that aspect of his game to be the complete player we need him to be and not just saying, be that guy on offense and we won't worry too much about the defensive side of things. But if you read some of the posts, our management apparently fails to develop properly, even though we were taking a reasonable approach with Strome.

Yes, he is playing in an up-tempo Chicago system, but also know that certain players, like Kane, demand attention from the other team, so it opens up some spacing for the other players. We don't have that dynamic of a player on our roster at this point, but that doesn't mean that all players who are not that elite have to be considered as complete liabilities with some aspects of their games, either. Fair shots are given to players who also take interest in their own development. Take Perlini - he was given the opportunity to play on some of our top lines before, as a result of staying committed to his development, using the tools he had properly, and seeming to show enough to earn some time there. Had he continued down that path, maybe we keep him and he becomes a top player. But, even this year, the talk was continuing on how he started to decline from the mental process, lack of effective board work, and play away from the puck. It's why Colliton took some time to sit Perlini and put him on lower lines. Did we fail Perlini as well, or just Strome? Or did we fail neither and the truth is that Perlini is a streaky player (yes) and that Strome became disenchanted with his own play within the organization and it led to him being upset and maybe giving the impression that he didn't buy in entirely. Doesn't mean that Strome is an overly good or bad player. I still think he is in the 50 point per year range for his career. But when it is the appearance of how much you want to be here, I think that was an impression that also formed.

 

[Jakey53]

I don't hate Strome. I am disappointed in Strome. He isn't playing like a 3rd overall pick for Chicago either. He is playing like a late 1st, early 2nd pick. I am deeply disappointed in Maloney and his scouts for drafting him so high. Him and Perlini for Schmaltz looks like an even trade to me.
Had he stayed on this team, he would have spent the first 5-10 years of his career, (however long he remained a Coyote), looked at as a disappointment despite being a good player. This would have been a weight hung around both Strome and the organization's necks. We did ourselves and Strome a favor by trading him. In Chicago, he's just a player, not a waste of a 3rd overall pick.

Fortunately, and I mean that with a capital F, it has worked out for both teams. Next time, it probably won't.

 

[hbk]

Is he slowing the game down playing with Kane? Or is he playing up tempo because of the players he is playing with? Either way, it's working.

Kane is making plays. Driving the play. Strome’s job is just getting the puck to him.

The difference is the linemates. Strome’s game is largely the same. The results are different because if the talent Kane possesses.

 

[hbk]

I agree, but I think you are missing the point, well, my point anyway. For any employee to succeed you give him tools to work with, whether it be management type person with potential, or a janitor. Strome has potential and has proven that at lower levels, so why not give him a "raise", show him he is a valuable member of your team, and give him a Keller, Chucky to work with. Now, after the trade and Strome is playing reasonably well, all I hear is that all he has are secondary assists, ( heard that from someone with great hockey knowledge.) or his D is not very good, (again, from someone who I respect.) which is complete garbage. We were damn lucky we got a player like Schmaltz. I don't think Strome will ever live up to a 3OA, but I think he will settle in as a fine 2C.

Coach the players you have. Develop a system for the players you have. I don’t think Tocchethas that ability to deviate from his desired system and we don’t have the horses to play only one style all the time. That’s my frustration with coaching and I don’t know if Chayka understands that.

 

[Jakey53]

It doesn't make sense b/c that is what some individuals are arguing.

People are saying that the staff does not know how to develop players properly. The fact is that 90-95% of development is done to that point. Making consistent smart decisions and playing at the NHL level speed in both physical and mental aspects are what needs refining in most players below the age of 24. Some get it right away. Some take time. We were in the latter with Strome b/c we actually said that we didn't want to saddle him with being just the guy who can help offensively, but then doesn't progress defensively. That is why you saw him on the lower lines - the offensive skill is there and maybe could have been better with more offensive talent around him. But we also needed to make sure that he was developing properly on the defensive side as well, which is why we would tend to match him up on those lower lines so he wouldn't be overwhelmed with the speed and decision-making process.

In other words, we were taking the time to develop that aspect of his game to be the complete player we need him to be and not just saying, be that guy on offense and we won't worry too much about the defensive side of things. But if you read some of the posts, our management apparently fails to develop properly, even though we were taking a reasonable approach with Strome.

Yes, he is playing in an up-tempo Chicago system, but also know that certain players, like Kane, demand attention from the other team, so it opens up some spacing for the other players. We don't have that dynamic of a player on our roster at this point, but that doesn't mean that all players who are not that elite have to be considered as complete liabilities with some aspects of their games, either. Fair shots are given to players who also take interest in their own development. Take Perlini - he was given the opportunity to play on some of our top lines before, as a result of staying committed to his development, using the tools he had properly, and seeming to show enough to earn some time there. Had he continued down that path, maybe we keep him and he becomes a top player. But, even this year, the talk was continuing on how he started to decline from the mental process, lack of effective board work, and play away from the puck. It's why Colliton took some time to sit Perlini and put him on lower lines. Did we fail Perlini as well, or just Strome? Or did we fail neither and the truth is that Perlini is a streaky player (yes) and that Strome became disenchanted with his own play within the organization and it led to him being upset and maybe giving the impression that he didn't buy in entirely. Doesn't mean that Strome is an overly good or bad player. I still think he is in the 50 point per year range for his career. But when it is the appearance of how much you want to be here, I think that was an impression that also formed.

I wasn't talking about development of Strome or other players. Now that Strome is doing better offensively than all thought, you start to hon in on his D play, which is just fine. This is a team that was a bubble team at best when Strome was here, we weren't contending for the SC, and this was another development year for the kids. He wasn't give a CHANCE. That is all. Perlini was given a chance, so has Crouse and Fischer. Now you start talking about Kane, well we have Keller, who is not as good but again, my point, Strome was not given a chance to play with talent for an extended period of time. WHY? RT is why. A person can get beat down only for so long until you get to the point and say f--- it. The Coyotes might come out smelling like a rose on this trade, but the next time they are so near sighted over a top talent, they probably won't. I was listening to Ken Hitchcock the other day and he said it is his responsibility to put players into a position to succeed. RT should take note.

 

[Name Nameless]

Why did Edmonton trade for Manning? Does their GM want to be fired, but he knows he gets a better deal if he is fired than quitting himself?

 

[Jakey53]

Coach the players you have. Develop a system for the players you have. I don’t think Tocchethas that ability to deviate from his desired system and we don’t have the horses to play only one style all the time. That’s my frustration with coaching and I don’t know if Chayka understands that.

I agree. I thought RT was the best coach when the Coyotes were looking to replace DT. I think I was wrong, DEAD wrong.

 

[Bonsai Tree]

I agree. I thought RT was the best coach when the Coyotes were looking to replace DT. I think I was wrong, DEAD wrong.

Funny. I started thinking that RT was an awful choice. Now I’m slowly warming up to him.

 

[hbk]

Funny. I started thinking that RT was an awful choice. Now I’m slowly warming up to him.

His “system” looks much better now that he has a C in Schmaltz who can actually play the speed/style that it requires.

 

[CLW]

I don't hate Strome. I am disappointed in Strome. He isn't playing like a 3rd overall pick for Chicago either. He is playing like a late 1st, early 2nd pick. I am deeply disappointed in Maloney and his scouts for drafting him so high. Him and Perlini for Schmaltz looks like an even trade to me.
Had he stayed on this team, he would have spent the first 5-10 years of his career, (however long he remained a Coyote), looked at as a disappointment despite being a good player. This would have been a weight hung around both Strome and the organization's necks. We did ourselves and Strome a favor by trading him. In Chicago, he's just a player, not a waste of a 3rd overall pick.

I think Strome is not done developing yet. For now it looks even, but in two or three years this trade may look very different. If/when Strome (somehow) finds his manstrength he can be a very different beast to play against. I suspect a potential Wheeler in there. I don't hate Schmaltz, but I'm not blown away either. Still reeks of a desperation move to me, and a management failure. There should have been a way to get Schmaltz without trading Strome at a low value point. But it seems the whole "too slowly" developing 3OA pick combined with a reluctant coach and misplaced drive for a playoff spot and wheels coming off losing streak simply become too much for Chayka.

 

[Jakey53]

His “system” looks much better now that he has a C in Schmaltz who can actually play the speed/style that it requires.

Schmaltz has played 17 games with the Yotes and we have 8 wins and 9 loses including OTL or OTW. We have exactly the same record if you back another 17 games. So how does the system look better? Is it because Schmaltz is fast? More flash and dash? I think we are damn lucky we got a player of Schmaltz's talent, but the team results hasn't changed. We had more talent last year than we have in years and all we heard was that it took time to adapt to RT's system, too many changes etc. etc. What are the excuses this year? This team should be better than what they have shown so far. That's my opinion and maybe I'm wrong, I don't know. We are 3 points from last and 8 pts. out of a playoff spot. When is enough enough. I don't care if the "system" looks good. I just want wins. Like they say, looks are only skin deep.

 

[Jakey53]

Funny. I started thinking that RT was an awful choice. Now I’m slowly warming up to him.

Why? The only player he held accountable has been Strome. Do you think Bush would play next game if he pulled a Gogo and kept on coughing up the puck over and over in one measly shift. Double standard here from RT. The vets can do no wrong. I think only Richardson is have a career year and OEL has played solid despite have multiple partners, but other than that, I don't see a player playing up to their potential. I would love to eat crow and see this team and RT prove me wrong. Maybe, just maybe, RT is doing a great job (looking at his record as HC makes me cry) and it's Chayka who has saddled him with a bunch of players who he evaluated wrong.