I was making an analogy – a technique which, time and again, I have lamented that this board so often does not seem to understand.
sometimes it's just about timing.
Saying that Gaunce has turned out OK therefore their handling of him was good is a post hoc analysis along the lines of saying that Hutton has turned out well because of how he was handled last year. Obviously I don't think either is true. If Gaunce has shown improvement once moved back to his natural position, the simpler explanation would be that he probably should have been kept there in the first place. I can't say that with 100% certainty, but it is the more elegant/intuitive conclusion to be drawn from the facts that we have been presented.
Why would that be the simpler explanation though? Wouldn't the simplest explanation be that he's now a better player than when he was first moved to the wing? Sure, you might feel that he'd have developed exactly the same, or even better, without the switch, but why get into hypotheticals when you can simply evaluate what is. And what is, is Gaunce's development is on track.
Now take into consideration some of the reasoning given at the time of the switch. They wanted him to improve his pace, his board work, etc. There were reasons given at the time of the switch for doing it. So if I say I am going to wash my car because I want it to be cleaner, and when I'm done washing my car it is cleaner, how is it a more elegant/intuitive conclusion to say my car would have been even cleaner if I had just left it alone?
Same goes with Hutton really. If anyone is unhappy with their development, speak up. If no one is unhappy with their development--and I have to think just about all of us are very pleased with both--then why second guess the decisions that got them to where they are? Contrast Hutton to Schroeder who came in out of college and had a very impressive showing in the AHL playoffs...did that advance his long term development? Can't say for sure it hurt it, but it's pretty fair to say he wouldn't have busted any worse if he had received the Hutton treatment.
Well there still aren't a ton of surefire prospects, and a couple of guys are probably playing prematurely in the NHL, so it's hard to say. So I'm not convinced this is definitely true, but if it is, it sure seems like (i) having a stable farm team, and (ii) coaching with that farm team would have a lot more to do with it than whatever direct involvement the parent club's management has had. (Which would be what, anyway, apart from moving Gaunce to wing? Periodic callups? Five minutes of NHL game time on the fourth line out of position?)
Again, I'm just looking at what is. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a single prospect that has stagnated or regressed. Maybe Friesen I guess, but not sure I'd count him as a prospect.
You can give Green all the credit if you want. Maybe it is all Green. But I don't think Green would be designing the offseason workout programs. It wasn't Green that kept Horvat up last year even when he didn't look ready. It wasn't Green that slipped Markstrom through waivers and has given him time to rebuild his game. It wasn't Green that put together the (often maligned) schedule for McCann and Virtanen.
That's not to take away from what Green has done. I expect he'll be replacing Willie next season in Vancouver. From a distance, he looks like a very good coach (but same could probably be said about Willie when he was in the AHL, so we'll see). But ultimately Green answers to Benning. The general consensus seems to be that it was at Benning's directive that Gaunce was moved in the first place, so from that we can infer that Benning is involved with other developmental decisions as well. Obviously none of us know exactly what and to what extent but it seems like a reasonable conclusion to make.
We can take it a step further and compare players under Benning's regime compared to Gillis's. Maybe it's nothing more than being in Utica with Green, but suddenly we are seeing prospects trending upwards, rather than flatlining or regressing out of the gate like we had for years. (Unfortunately, with the binary mentality of too many forum members these days, it's necessary to put in a disclaimer here that I'm not anti-Gillis, I think he did a great job overall). Yes, absolutely it helps owning the farm team now. And yes, it helps having a good coach in the AHL...although we haven't had too many weak ones over the years. But Benning will be giving directives, just as Gillis would have. As Jesus would say, you judge a tree by its fruit, and so far prospect development under Benning has been just peachy.