The fact that Kobasew has played as many games as he has, despite being utterly useless for the vast majority of those games, suggests he's a "pet". If he wasn't a pet, the only time he'd ever see the lineup was when the Pens had a half dozen forwards out. But Kobasew continues to play even when the roster is largely intact (minus 1 or 2 guys).
The fact that when Dupuis first went down, it was Kobasew who was penciled in next to Crosby, instead of even trying any of the youngsters first.
The fact that just recently Engelland played defense and Despres sat in the press box so that Kobasew could play suggests he's a "pet".
Is he as entrenched as a guy like Adams? No. But you're being a blind homer if you believe he doesn't get favorable treatment ahead of more deserving youngsters.
Kobasew is an experienced NHL player with multiple 20 goal seasons under his belt. What NHL coach wouldn't have given him first crack at that spot over completely unproven rookies? What NHL coach wouldn't have given him multiple opportunities to prove he could do it again?
As for him continuing to play "even when the roster is largely intact" - that simply hasn't been true. Kobasew has frequently been a healthy scratch over the past couple of months, in favor of playing guys like Gibbons, Zolnierczyk, and Megna, not to mention playing Engelland at forward.
Playing him in one game following the Olympic break doesn't prove anything other than that they decided to give him one last chance. He obviously failed it, since he was scratched the very next game, and is now on waivers.
Adams is a pet. Glass is a pet. Kobasew is far from having that status. The difference is in what they've accomplished in the past. Kobasew doesn't have it anymore, but he'd had it in the past, and early in the season (as in, during pre-season and the first couple games), he showed flashes of possibly still having it. Adams and Glass never had it in the first place. That's why they are "pets", but Kobasew isn't.
I find it ironic that people around here want infinite chances for rookies to prove themselves and get better, but when there's a player who has actually proven that they are capable of more in the past, the same people want that guy immediately removed from the team the moment he doesn't produce. I guess because "potential" is more important than "experience" or "proven history".
Granted, I still think they played Kobasew more than they should have, but at the same time, I don't think it requires "pet" status in order for them to have done so. I saying I understand the decision, even if I don't agree with it.
