Confirmed with Link: Coyotes trade Strome and Perlini for Nick Schmaltz - Part Deux

[RemoAZ]

How many times do you draft #3 overall? Hopefully not very often. You have to do everything possible to make that kid succeed especially when you're an organization that can't sign high end talent as FAs. When you're trading him at 21 years old and less than 50 games played, you f***ed up unless he is part of a package that lands you Matthews. I didn't see any special effort to get Strome going or develop him. This team can't score for shit. There was absolutely no reason not to put him on a line with Keller. Keller wasn't tearing it up with anyone else and it's not like we have a Crosby or Toews keeping him from getting a shot on the top line. Not only did they not put him with Keller, he was consistently put with the two least talented forwards on the roster. Did they bring in a special assistant to work with him? How many times did we read about Tocc spending more time with him or taking responsibility for his development? Do you really think Kane would put up with him if he was only good enough to be a 4th line center on one of the worst teams in the league? Everything about the situation before and after the trade point to his development being very low on their priority list when it should have been at worst, #2 behind Keller. Complete and utter failure by an organization that consistently fails at pretty much everything. But it's the location of the arena that kills attendance. Yeah, right.

 

[Jakey53]

I said average or above average. You need to watch them play and not judge them because they are small, that seems to be your on going argument. The game is about puck movement and puck pressure now, not completing checks. Being good in the corner doesn't mean being physical, its about getting to the puck first, knowing what to do with it quickly, or disrupting the pass from a D up ice. My point is they are worlds ahead of Strome and Perlini.

Tell me the game is not about completing checks when the playoffs come around.Keller this year spends half the shift on his a-- because the other teams have a read on him. He gets hit, you know, a completed check, almost every shift. There are very few players that can do everything, so it's up to the coaches to put them with line mates to compliment each other, so I really don't care if Keller is crappy in the corners as long as he puts up points.

 

[MIGs Dog]

How many times do you draft #3 overall?

I know it's a rhetorical question, but I feel like answering.

Two.

We've had the third pick only twice in franchise history. You know who the other guy is and how that turned out.

Here's a bigger crime. How is it that as bad as this team has been for most of 25 yrs we have never picked 1st, 2nd, or 4th?

Cursed I say.

 

[Jakey53]

Again, why else would he basically start doing all of the things that we wanted him to do here and started to do in Chicago?

Every player is given an opportunity. The fact is that a player like Garland showed that want moreso than Strome did. If Strome was unhappy with how the coaching staff was using him, then ask them what he can do to put himself in that position to earn ice time. If Tocchet, Chayka, and other coaches didn't give him meaningful ways to improve, then yes, it is all on the coach and GM, and Strome has every right to ask out. But I have a hard time believing that a coaching staff and the higher-ups would do that, for several reasons:

#1 That would be apparent to other members of the team and if a coach treated a player with a good attitude and the skill to help the team in a poor manner - more than just Strome would be asking to be traded.
#2 The coaches would then also treat everyone in a very similar fashion. Why would you single out one player with no additional ways to help him succeed and then turn around and become coach of the year to others? Coaches have to deal with 20-30 different players during the year. They will tell you what mistakes you are making and reinforce positively when good things are done.
#3 If a player doesn't understand why they are being treated a certain way, then they can ask those same resources. It is humbling to be told the same thing by a coach and a GM. If the coaching staff and GM are giving you very different information (i.e. Strome goes to Tocchet and Tocchet says that he needs to work on board work. Strome then goes to Chayka and is told that his board work is fine, but to work on driving the net. If that is the case, then yes, we are stringing him along). I think that the reality is that Strome was told the same thing by coach and GM and he simply didn't believe it. That's not being mistreated b/c he is being given the same message, which follows the methodology that Chayka wanted - absolute transparency between GM, coaches, and players.

Much like the border debate, there are two sides that needed to come together, but one side is being petulant about it. We saw it with Turris. While Strome didn't quite have the same vocal presence about his unhappiness that Turris had, it still doesn't change the fact that there was a lack of effort on the player's side.

I'm usually on the coaches/team side when something like this happens, but with Strome I blame RT. He did not like Strome. Did not put him in a position to succeed. Benched him. Strome was the only one he held accountable. Not Perlini, not Fischer. Most knew Strome would be traded sooner than later. The reason Strome is doing better is because the coach is putting him in a position to succeed, something RT doesn't understand. NOW, if Strome sh--- the bed, the blame is 100% on him, but at least he has been given that opportunity, which he was not given here, regardless of what you say.

 

[BUX7PHX]

I'm usually on the coaches/team side when something like this happens, but with Strome I blame RT. He did not like Strome. Did not put him in a position to succeed. Benched him. Strome was the only one he held accountable. Not Perlini, not Fischer. Most knew Strome would be traded sooner than later. The reason Strome is doing better is because the coach is putting him in a position to succeed, something RT doesn't understand. NOW, if Strome sh--- the bed, the blame is 100% on him, but at least he has been given that opportunity, which he was not given here, regardless of what you say.

Think about what you just stated. Fischer was given rope. So was Perlini. Garland is now being given rope. Crouse? Yep. Same with Keller, Chychrun, and Schmaltz. Why would that change only for Strome and for no one else?

Probably because Strome thought he earned it already without putting the necessary work in. Remember that we only see the games. We never see how he applies himself during practices, during video, during lifting and strength training. If he doesn't push himself in those areas outside of games, why would you ever trust him during the games?

I am speculating some on this, but if he was putting forth the maximum effort in all of those scenarios mentioned in leading up to games, why would we staple him on a lower line, and why would we have such interest in trading him away?

You have yet to answer these questions and the answers always circle back to the same thing that you and others can't or don't care to admit: Strome chose to not fully commit himself to what we were doing. Same as Turris. As commenters from other boards have mentioned, many players started off on lower lines only to work their way up. When the player shows that commitment, the coach can show that commitment to the player's ability to succeed.

 

[RemoAZ]

I know it's a rhetorical question, but I feel like answering.

Two.

We've had the third pick only twice in franchise history. You know who the other guy is and how that turned out.

Here's a bigger crime. How is it that as bad as this team has been for most of 25 yrs we have never picked 1st, 2nd, or 4th?

Cursed I say.

The fact that we were trying to squeeze out wins with scrap heap vets instead of playing prospects when we were out of the race like the other bad teams do didn't help.

 

[BUX7PHX]

The fact that we were trying to squeeze out wins with scrap heap vets instead of playing prospects when we were out of the race like the other bad teams do didn't help.

See my post above - if a rookie like Strome was not applying himself properly, what message is it sending to reward him with ice time?

 

[RemoAZ]

See my post above - if a rookie like Strome was not applying himself properly, what message is it sending to reward him with ice time?

You get on his ass and make him apply himself. "We need more from Strome. I'm not seeing the effort and I want him to be a lot more aggressive tonight when I put him on an offensive line". Do SOMETHING! Don't just stick him on the 4th line or scratch him and say f*** it. This isn't someone we haven't invested much in. Be the f***ing head coach and make it a priority to get the kid going. You're telling me he can be labeled the Kessel whisperer but he can't motivate a 21 year old as well as the rookie coach in Chicago can? Give me a break. He's paid millions of dollars to get the most out of his players not throw up his hands and ship out Domi because he's too arrogant or Strome because he's too entitled. If he can't get these young stars to play for him, he needs to get out of town and fast.

And Chayka can call Shotgun.

 

[BUX7PHX]

You get on his ass and make him apply himself. "We need more from Strome. I'm not seeing the effort and I want him to be a lot more aggressive tonight when I put him on an offensive line". Do SOMETHING! Don't just stick him on the 4th line or scratch him and say **** it. This isn't someone we haven't invested much in. Be the ****ing head coach and make it a priority to get the kid going. You're telling me he can be labeled the Kessel whisperer but he can't motivate a 21 year old as well as the rookie coach in Chicago can? Give me a break. He's paid millions of dollars to get the most out of his players not throw up his hands and ship out Domi because he's too arrogant or Strome because he's too entitled. If he can't get these young stars to play for him, he needs to get out of town and fast.

And Chayka can call Shotgun.

Finally, a breakthrough!!!!!

If putting someone on the 3rd or 4th line who believes they should be on the 1st or 2nd line doesn't motivate that player to apply himself... IT'S NOT GOING TO MAKE HIM APPLY HIMSELF IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM.

That is why we traded him. You say, "DO SOMETHING," and I would argue that the same statement applies to a player like Strome. Not happy with being given limited time? Do something to prove that you deserve more time. Putting a player on the 1st line only perpetuates the issues that you were trying to solve by placing him on a lower line in the first place. That's called being a player's coach, which was exactly what we didn't want, right?

 

[RemoAZ]

Well the only thing we agree on is that we completely disagree with each other. That's the only breakthrough I see.

 

[BUX7PHX]

Well the only thing we agree on is that we completely disagree with each other. That's the only breakthrough I see.

It's not that difficult. It's the same principle as rewarding a child for having a temper tantrum by promising to buy them a toy if they stop. The child is going to learn that by throwing a temper tantrum and then stopping, they will get a toy. Why would you want to reward that behavior?

You can try to force someone to apply themselves, but if you have to force someone to do something, how is that a good thing? Think about something that you were forced into doing in your past - were you happy being forced into it? You cant force something that isnt there. That's why we had to trade him. And what message is it sending other players to reward someone as a way to break them out of their funk or slide?

That's really poor psychology and extremely poor resource management...

 

[lanky]

Coyotes had 5.5 years of control left on Strome when he was traded. If motivation was the problem, as BUX suggests, then there was lots of time to figure that out. The org pushed the abort button.

 

[Neighborhood Coyote]

Is it not also possible that RT or another on the staff just simply didn't like Strome? I mean, if one is going to say it's Stromes fault because he didn't apply himself etc etc... Isn't the opposite and equally as likely scenario that RT and Co just didn't like him? Maybe even just on a personal level.

They are all people, not everyone gets along with everyone and not everyone is treated equally.

Btw I'm not even saying that's the case... I don't think either one is the reason. Personally, I think RT and Co aren't very good at coaching based on the numbers. So it's most likely they just don't know how to get the most out of their players. (With the possible exception of Allen). And they especially don't know how to work with a player who doesn't fit their mold.

 

[RemoAZ]

It's not that difficult. It's the same principle as rewarding a child for having a temper tantrum by promising to buy them a toy if they stop. The child is going to learn that by throwing a temper tantrum and then stopping, they will get a toy. Why would you want to reward that behavior?

You can try to force someone to apply themselves, but if you have to force someone to do something, how is that a good thing? Think about something that you were forced into doing in your past - were you happy being forced into it? You cant force something that isnt there. That's why we had to trade him. And what message is it sending other players to reward someone as a way to break them out of their funk or slide?

That's really poor psychology and extremely poor resource management...

Horse shit. It's called coaching. Did you ever play a sport where a coach road you ass to get you to play better? Torts is chewing on his guys all the time. Not every player is plug and play or has a premium personality. Many need to be coached. Saying he doesn't fit the system or he isn't self motivated is lazy coaching. Many of the most talented players have been babied and worshiped all their lives. They will be arrogant, entitled and used to being way better than everyone else. A good leader will get that player to run through a wall for him. It takes time and effort and may not happen in 40 games when the player is 21. It definitely won't happen if very little effort is made and/or you just get rid of the player.

 

[_Del_]

I said average or above average. You need to watch them play and not judge them because they are small, that seems to be your on going argument

My opinion doesn't have much to do with size. I already said Keller was remarkably good at getting into corners and wizarding out the puck last year. This year he isn't going in with any consistency or effort. Schmaltz disappears when the board play starts, too. Has never been part of his game. Head/heart problem, not size.
Having said that, I don't think Keller recovering the puck in a corner has the same sort of impact on the game (particularly as the game goes on) that Hanzal does in the corner. So size and even reach do come into play.
Not slamming Keller or Schmaltz as players. Good teams can still make use of those guys; they don't discard them and hope one day a complete player shows up instead. If you can't use a guy with flaws but need "the perfect player" by whatever metric you use, you're not a great coach. You might be a good one, but you'll never be great.
But if Keller and Schmaltz are your best players, be prepared to get knocked on your ass when more physical teams come to town and when playoffs start.

I am speculating some on this, ...

That's a generous interpretation...

 

[cobra427]

Tell me the game is not about completing checks when the playoffs come around.Keller this year spends half the shift on his a-- because the other teams have a read on him. He gets hit, you know, a completed check, almost every shift. There are very few players that can do everything, so it's up to the coaches to put them with line mates to compliment each other, so I really don't care if Keller is crappy in the corners as long as he puts up points.

Keller is good enough in the corners and without the puck. Lets make the playoffs first before we worry about completing checks as our big problem (its not).

 

[cobra427]

The verdict is still out on Strome, the possibilities are:

A. Tocc didn't give Strome a chance or play him on a top line to allow him to produce points
B. Strome didn't work hard enough to earn top line minutes and is bad on D and away from the puck
C. Tocc didn't like Strome
D. Strome requested a trade
E. Tocc/Chayka think Strome will never be a a 1C/2C and traded him while they could still get value
F. Strome is a 1C/2C
G. Strome is producing because he is playing with Kane
H. Strome is getting prime minutes because the young coach wants to not piss off a GM on the hot seat that just hired him

Time will tell.

 

[lanky]

Can I pick more than one? A through G might all have some truth to them. If I can only take one it'll be F.

 

[gorsk11]

I want to chime in here as I have stayed quiet in all this. I didn't like the trade when it happened.

1. I don't think Strome was given a chance to play in the top six with our better offensive forwards. The organization
wanted Gally and Stepan to be in the top six at center.
2. Who knows what happened off the ice - but on ice success is what matters o me and putting players in place to succeed in games - I don't think Strome was
helped playing fourth line with no one. He needed some goal scorers/players to compliment his game.
3. There were a few games he was our best center and forward early in the year when no one was producing. He made some of the best passes on the team.
4. The kid is still young - I don't see why they needed to trade him - but clearly he wasn't a favorite of the coach or Chayka
5. He should have been a factor on the Power Play - utilize his skills. But Stepan was given priority.

For those of you watching him play - he looks good in Chicago - It isn't just Kane making him look good.
He looks to be playing with speed, he looks like he made an adjustment - either he is getting in better shape or the more he plays
the better he looks. But, he looks good. He is a top notch passer of the puck. I hope he becomes a very good player.

Why do players who leave here look better - Is it the organization philosophy.... Turris, Domi and now Strome all look much better after leaving.
Strome and Turris both third overall picks - eerily similar situations - maybe different circumstances. I hope Schmaltz can be a top player for us to save face on this trade.

Off topic - I am glad Garland is playing well. I did not think he had a chance to be much of an NHL player based on his size and abilities that I saw.
He has surprised me. Don't think he can last long term but who knows. Only reason he even was given a chance due to so many injuries. I feel we have an offensive lineup full of mostly AHL players. Keller, Gally, Stepan and Richardson only legit NHLs left in the lineup offensively.

 

[azcanuck]

I said average or above average. You need to watch them play and not judge them because they are small, that seems to be your on going argument. The game is about puck movement and puck pressure now, not completing checks. Being good in the corner doesn't mean being physical, its about getting to the puck first, knowing what to do with it quickly, or disrupting the pass from a D up ice. My point is they are worlds ahead of Strome and Perlini.

Tell me when I've said "small" is the issue. I said soft like baby wipes. Marchant is small but scrappy. Gallagher and Domi are small but feisty.
Yes the game is about puck movement and pressure You're correct on all of those. But it still involves fighting for the puck and contact.
there is no doubt Keller and Schwartz are soft one dimensional players. They are good offensive players. Not great. But they give you little else unlike many players around the NHL who are highly skilled but give you much more (faceoffs, grinding, defensive awareness, etc).

 

[azcanuck]

That's why Archibald and Cousins are on this team. They are small but not afraid. Garland is playing that way now also. Chucky, who is one of our more skilled guys has played outstanding the last dozen or so games, goes to the net, into the corners etc. Overall, we are a bit soft and we have to add some muscle into the line up. Fischer and Crouse have to play with much more physicality.

Every team has guys like Cousins and Archibald. Big deal.
You just want some of your best players not to be so one dimensional unless you're Connor McDavid. Superstars can be one dimensional.
Chyka has to change his algorithm. We need a marchand type player. A Getzlaf. A Perry. Malkin/CRosby. Gallagher/Domi. On and on teams have their good/very good/superstar players who do a lot more .
And you're right about Fischer and Crouse, esp. Crouse he plays too soft for a big man.

 

[BUX7PHX]

Horse ****. It's called coaching. Did you ever play a sport where a coach road you ass to get you to play better? Torts is chewing on his guys all the time. Not every player is plug and play or has a premium personality. Many need to be coached. Saying he doesn't fit the system or he isn't self motivated is lazy coaching. Many of the most talented players have been babied and worshiped all their lives. They will be arrogant, entitled and used to being way better than everyone else. A good leader will get that player to run through a wall for him. It takes time and effort and may not happen in 40 games when the player is 21. It definitely won't happen if very little effort is made and/or you just get rid of the player.

I have been a part of a sport where a coach chews your ass out. It has the opposite effect, b/c then you have loads of pressure heaped upon the player. Does no one remember how they would harp on Tippett for not allowing players to just play? The suggestion that you are making for a coach to ride someone's ass until they play better is EXACTLY the opposite of that and what angered people about our previous regime. So, no coach can ever do right by someone like yourself, b/c you want him to allow the players to just play, but if they aren't motivated enough, then you want that same coach who allows them to just play to chew them out over not playing better.

I have also had the opportunity to coach players and you can tell which ones are buying in and which ones aren't. Did I get upset with certain athletes? Sure. But did me getting mad at them "force" them to play better? No. You had to pick out the teaching moments vs the moments of complete idiocy. These were with athletes who are a little younger than Strome, but not by much. Usually, the best way to put pressure on a player is to make that pressure internally self-motivating. Making the player think about why he is getting the minutes that he is getting and then responding.

What is also funny is that this is actually playing out right now with the Stars. Their GM called out Seguin and Benn on Dec. 28th. Since then, Seguin has improved, but Benn hadn't. The Stars are also 4-1-1 in the 6 games since - the losses are to Winnipeg and an OT loss to Montreal. The wins have been against Detroit, St. Louis, NJ, and the only win against a team with a winning record was Washington. 4 of the 6 were at home. The point is that there is not an ounce of scientific proof that dictates the idea that screaming at someone and riding their ass 100% makes them play better.

How have Seguin, Benn responded since being called out?

As the article states, the possession numbers haven't been great and the most gifted scorer on the team is starting to score a little bit better. It may have provided some short-term improvement for Seguin only, but isn't the idea to get a long-term improvement going on using the methods that you describe?

The bottom line is that there is no magic formula of chewing a player out that can guarantee that they play better. Some can respond better and some can respond worse. What I am certain of is that a coach has probably tried all sorts of methods to see what works for the player. That is what coaching at this level is - people management. For all we know, he tried playing the positive reinforcement and negative reinforcement routine during practices. Maybe it was visual learning, then auditory learning, then experience-based learning. If we couldn't get a pulse on what made the player play better and tried all of those things, then we had to do what we did and simply gross some return for a player that wasn't responding to anything that was done.

 

[Jakey53]

Keller is good enough in the corners and without the puck. Lets make the playoffs first before we worry about completing checks as our big problem (its not).

Keller is only so so in the corners, and I didn't say completing checks is our big problem.

 

[Jakey53]

Every team has guys like Cousins and Archibald. Big deal.
You just want some of your best players not to be so one dimensional unless you're Connor McDavid. Superstars can be one dimensional.
Chyka has to change his algorithm. We need a marchand type player. A Getzlaf. A Perry. Malkin/CRosby. Gallagher/Domi. On and on teams have their good/very good/superstar players who do a lot more .
And you're right about Fischer and Crouse, esp. Crouse he plays too soft for a big man.

It would be nice to see Keller, Schmaltz and Vinnie go into the corners like Garland, AND come out with the pucks most times. We have to change up our mix a bit, and most knew we were a soft team, except maybe Chayka.

 

[Jakey53]

The verdict is still out on Strome, the possibilities are:

A. Tocc didn't give Strome a chance or play him on a top line to allow him to produce points
B. Strome didn't work hard enough to earn top line minutes and is bad on D and away from the puck
C. Tocc didn't like Strome
D. Strome requested a trade
E. Tocc/Chayka think Strome will never be a a 1C/2C and traded him while they could still get value
F. Strome is a 1C/2C
G. Strome is producing because he is playing with Kane
H. Strome is getting prime minutes because the young coach wants to not piss off a GM on the hot seat that just hired him

Time will tell.

A and C are facts, not possibilities, and H is a fictional statement you made up awhile back which doesn't make any sense, same as the statement you made about Strome being bad on D, which he isn't. Strome is far from perfect, but you and other Strome haters have painted him with a brush as useless, which he is not. Strome could bust, but he is at least been given a shot in Chicago to show his worth, and what ever happens, it is now 100% on his shoulders. As it stands now,the Coyotes won this trade by a wide margin, but Schmaltz is also far from perfect.