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

[BUX7PHX]

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.

It's not a question of whether or not we dislike Strome even. I have gone on record stating that I think he could be a 50 point per season C. What needs to be dissected is what the player and coaches did with his time.

You are correct that he wasn't given top line minutes. Was that solely based off of a bias our coaching staff had towards him that had nothing to do with his preparedness, or was it a bias that was cemented by a marginal attitude or work ethic? Both are possibilities, but to put it on only one side of the coin is a false assertion.

Did our coaching staff and management have a high expectation for Strome? Yes - he was taken with the 3rd OA pick. But let's also consider the idea that he was a PPG scorer on the top line in the AHL, and most AHL top lines are basically what you would see on the 3rd or 4th line of an NHL team, correct? So would it be unreasonable to assume that playing with a similar cast of players (from a talent perspective) on the 3rd/4th line in the NHL as what he played with in the AHL, that there should be an expectation to do more than what showed in the NHL? I think that is a reasonable case to make. Even if he got 75% of the way there, that at least shows some signs of potential progress. But he didn't even get there. He had his moments in the face off dot and had some reasonable plays, but nothing that suggested that the player we saw in the AHL was what we were now getting in the NHL. But he deserved to play with top line players, even though everything suggested that he digressed from the prior year to this year. People are forgetting that if he was able to play with top line AHL players just fine, why wouldn't similar player types fit with him in the NHL on the 3rd line?

When you put all of the pieces of the puzzle together, I think that you have the following situation:

Strome thought he should have been in the NHL far earlier than what he was. He sucked it up upon assignment to the AHL, and actually performed well. That performance gained him confidence and earned him a call-up at the end of the year, where he also did well. That alone fed him the idea that he was "in" the NHL and deserved to play on the highest of lines, given his draft pedigree.

However, there were still things that he needed to work on. Our coaching staff and GM recognized this, and told him what he needed to work on in the off-season. Flash forward to training camp, preseason, and the early games. We did make some moves to grab centers in the offseason, which is basically the equivalent of yelling at someone and riding his ass to do better. If we pick up a player who we slot in for your job, one should take that as a slight and should come into camp even more determined to earn that time. The returning players all saw how bad our start was last year and came in determined to turn that around. Remember that Strome played more in the AHL last year, and maybe that start didn't quite stick around in his mind. So Strome probably made some improvements, but not as many as some of the other younger players on the team - both mentally and physically. We tried to play the hardball routine and it didn't work. We treated every young player in the same way - showing video, teaching, and those that picked up those concepts and applied them were rewarded with better time, like Crouse, Garland, and others. This even applies to the veterans like Cousins.

Eventually, we couldn't get through and the only thing that we didn't do was just give him time on the top line, which sends the wrong message to the 7-8 other players in their first through third year who are working hard to improve, and yet the player that hasn't done that to the same degree as those other players gets rewarded. Now, the coaches may not have given him as much leash, but there should also be an expectation from 1st round picks that they shouldn't have much leash, either. We talk about Keller and his board play - if that is the worst thing about him this year (usually the 2nd year is tougher than the 1st), and he is putting up points at a fairly similar clip in a harder year (as teams have more tape on him), then he deserves some leash there. Same goes for Chychrun, Crouse, or any other young player.

Remo - read this story:

Blackhawks' Dylan Strome no longer has to worry about a benching when mistakes happen

You just said that a player is supposed to get his ass chewed out. Well, getting sat is the exact same. As I have said before, reinforcement like that to "force" a player into doing something doesn't usually work. But you also can't reward a player if there is inconsistency, either. There has to be something in between, and my guess is that we tried to bridge that gap, hence the concept of "hope" that Chayka referred to after the trade. It also puts a little bit of basis behind cobra's thought of Strome playing prime minutes due to the coach not wanting to piss off his GM. I don't think it is quite that, but I also think that the coach is not under pressure to win, and therefore, that lack of pressure means he can take some liberties with younger players and move them into those types of roles to feel out what he has to work with. Colliton doesn't have to worry about getting removed quite yet. Tocchet could be on a hotter seat, especially after last year's start and the fact that the Coyotes have not been a playoff contender in a while (at least far longer relative to the Blackhawks).

 

[RemoAZ]

I think we had every incentive to go overboard with coaching and development with the kid because we are so void of overall talent, talented centers and scorers plus the fact that we invested #3 overall on him. Now he looks like exactly the type of player we need from day one with his new organization. To me that again is a huge fail from an organization full of failures. I watched him again last night. He didn't have a great game but he was in front of the net consistently including for a couple goals. He's playing like the player he was at every level aaaaaand developing. They opened up the game with changes to three of their 4 lines last night. Guess which line they didn't touch? No way that line isn't changed if Kane isn't playing great with Strome and/or doesn't want him on his line. There's also no way he stays on the 1st PP unit if he doesn't belong there.

I don't think he was developed/coached properly here. You don't agree with that. No more debating is going to change either one of our minds.

 

[BUX7PHX]

I don't think he was developed/coached properly here. You don't agree with that. No more debating is going to change either one of our minds.

There has to be two sides to that, though. The player also has to have the want to be coached and developed, too. It is very possible that Strome was open to coaching and development and the coaching staff didn't do so properly. Just the same as it is probable that the coaching staff was open to coaching and development, and Strome may have been out of touch with what he needed to do. The answer is probably somewhere in between, but considering that this coach was hired specifically for his teaching ability, does it not seem odd that they would somehow either not teach or forget how to teach this player?

People have discussed Crouse's development here and there. In the no news is good news department, no one has talked about Chychrun's development, or even to a degree, Garland's, Hinostroza's, or Fischer's. All players have had their good and bad games, but there is no definitive sign that these players have failed to develop. But then we look at Strome and Perlini, and see some sort of failure in development. Perlini we knew had the physical traits but the between the ears part wasn't that great. Strome is the only one that we have no real great explanation for, but keep in mind that a coach or coaching staff have to manage several players throughout the year. We do have every incentive to go overboard with Strome, but shouldn't that case be made for every young player on the roster. When we have Keller, Chychrun, Dvorak, Hinostroza, Fischer, Perlini, and Strome on a roster (granted injuries ended Dvorak's season early), you can't necessarily spend all the time with one player to focus on. And in all honesty, if you are focusing so much energy on Strome while not so much on the other players, what does it say when you don't have to worry about the 5 or 6 other players and have to worry about keeping the 1 content? It probably means that those 5 or 6 are buying in and doing the necessary things to get better and improve, and the 1 is the guy that you have to worry about. Coaches don't have the time to appease to the 1 player - they have to worry about the collective group and collection of individuals as well.

 

[RemoAZ]

Perlini got several shots in the top six. He showed flashes but lacked consistency. He may only be a bottom six guy. They tried to send Dvo down how many times but couldn't because of injuries even though he was clearly better than any of the centers we had? We f***ed up there too. The jury is still out on the rest of the guys you mentioned. What's different about Strome is he has the talent to be a #1 guy and has been on every level. We invested the #3 pick in him. He may never be a #1 or #2 but he has that kind of talent. Instead of doing everything possible to get this guy to that level and actually trying him in that spot, we dumped in less than 50 games for a decent winger who they forced to play out of position. He can be a good winger but he's a poor center, same as Galchenyuk imo. It's just bad asset management. Now we sit here still desperate for a top six center with a team that blows offensively. Ground hog day in the desert.

 

[BUX7PHX]

Those are all very salient points. Part of that development aspect can include going down to the AHL, as the speed of the game in the AHL is way ahead of that in juniors, but slightly behind that in the NHL. I haven't seen anything from Dvorak that says that his development is completely f***ed. Rather, quite the contrary. The difference is that while injuries may have prevented him from going to the A, we could have made additional deals or waiver pickups to force him to the A. Dvorak accepted that he didn't want to be that guy who gets sent to the AHL and probably showed a further effort in preparation, etc. to force the coaches hands in the opposite direction, where we had to keep him up. I also truly believe that part of the reason that they were interested in sending Dvorak down was to actually put him on a line with Perlini in the A, see if there was some chemistry, and then bring both up within about a 2 week period after Dvorak was sent down (Perlini was brought up about 3 weeks after the talk of Dvorak going to Tucson).

I can agree that it is possible that we didn't do everything in our power to get him to the level that we drafted him at, and that his development curve was going to take a little longer. But how much is too long before we are not certain if the ROI is there? Fair or not, while we are waiting on the development to come around, 22 players taken after him in that 2015 draft have already seen more than 100 NHL games.

I understand that simply playing a player can be viewed as development, but if Chicago is just sending him out there on Kane's line and he is not developing defensively/away from the puck or his play is somewhat of a derivative of Kane and Debrincat's abilities, what happens when one, or both of those players is not on his line? If his defensive play is lackluster years down the road and he can't make up for it with his offense, was he developed properly? All that I have heard is that he is now not afraid of being benched. So he doesn't have to worry about being benched - that could mean making twice as many mistakes but putting up twice as many points as he did here. Is that development? Or is that only developing one aspect of his game, while taking a liberal approach to the other aspect? The latter is what will prevent him from being elite until someone takes the time to show him how to be that elite player on both sides of the ice. Doesn't mean he can't be very good, but probably never elite.

 

[cobra427]

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.

Jakey, you don't know the facts, none of us do, we are all speculating.

 

[cobra427]

Those are all very salient points. Part of that development aspect can include going down to the AHL, as the speed of the game in the AHL is way ahead of that in juniors, but slightly behind that in the NHL. I haven't seen anything from Dvorak that says that his development is completely ****ed. Rather, quite the contrary. The difference is that while injuries may have prevented him from going to the A, we could have made additional deals or waiver pickups to force him to the A. Dvorak accepted that he didn't want to be that guy who gets sent to the AHL and probably showed a further effort in preparation, etc. to force the coaches hands in the opposite direction, where we had to keep him up. I also truly believe that part of the reason that they were interested in sending Dvorak down was to actually put him on a line with Perlini in the A, see if there was some chemistry, and then bring both up within about a 2 week period after Dvorak was sent down (Perlini was brought up about 3 weeks after the talk of Dvorak going to Tucson).

I can agree that it is possible that we didn't do everything in our power to get him to the level that we drafted him at, and that his development curve was going to take a little longer. But how much is too long before we are not certain if the ROI is there? Fair or not, while we are waiting on the development to come around, 22 players taken after him in that 2015 draft have already seen more than 100 NHL games.

I understand that simply playing a player can be viewed as development, but if Chicago is just sending him out there on Kane's line and he is not developing defensively/away from the puck or his play is somewhat of a derivative of Kane and Debrincat's abilities, what happens when one, or both of those players is not on his line? If his defensive play is lackluster years down the road and he can't make up for it with his offense, was he developed properly? All that I have heard is that he is now not afraid of being benched. So he doesn't have to worry about being benched - that could mean making twice as many mistakes but putting up twice as many points as he did here. Is that development? Or is that only developing one aspect of his game, while taking a liberal approach to the other aspect? The latter is what will prevent him from being elite until someone takes the time to show him how to be that elite player on both sides of the ice. Doesn't mean he can't be very good, but probably never elite.

Strome is benefitting from Kane and Debrincat's, not the other way around. His production, and the coach pleasing the GM, even after his 3 penalty game, will keep him in the line up (for now). I do have third row season tickets at the United center, so I have seen him play Stromes overall game is poor still, that will catch up with him.

 

[RemoAZ]

You read the part about him not worrying about being benched but missed:

"Strome, who took three minor penalties in less than one period during Monday's loss to the Flames, has already established himself as one of the Blackhawks' key players since coming over in a trade with the Coyotes."

Every player makes mistakes. How many times does Goligoski make a mind numbing pass to no one or the other team with no accountability? Schmaltz and Galchenyuk have had stretches of very little effort at times since they got here with no demotion to the 4th line. Strome's coach gives him some rope because in spite of him having less than a season of NHL experience, he's playing like the #2 center we need and showing great chemistry with their star player who's on a 100+ point pace. Not giving him even an opportunity to play in that role here, the only role he's ever played, is as I'm sure everyone is tired of reading me type, poor asset management.

 

[RemoAZ]

Strome is benefitting from Kane and Debrincat's, not the other way around. His production, and the coach pleasing the GM, even after his 3 penalty game, will keep him in the line up (for now). I do have third row season tickets at the United center, so I have seen him play Stromes overall game is poor still, that will catch up with him.

If you are watching that games, you know Debrincat hasn't been on Strome's line in a while other than the PP. You should post how poor his play is on the Chicago board. I'd enjoy reading that.

 

[ParisSaintGermain]

Only issue for me (and it is a major one) is that we traded Strome before seeing a full NHL season of him.

After all those years being patient and him slowly getting there, they gave up on him without that one full year. I really didn't get the sudden impatience, and for me it almost felt it was perhaps more towards Perlini than Strome. I get the frustration with Perlini as he had been stagnating from some time, has been slotted a top 6 guy for a while and just did not deliver effort wise. No issue with him gone.

But Strome has been a fourth liner from the top of the year, and yes of course one struggling out of the gate AGAIN: however this is almost a team wide tradition in which many players never get criticised for- often leaders too (we see you, guys who puts points up in the second part of the season when nothing matters anymore).

Ultimately this move was a combination of many factors - and one essential - it was also an opportunity to get a very good player back, and a player that has performed very well till the injury.

However I am still very sour about this move because we have been spoon fed this summer on how essential the center position is, how to get size at the center position is important, how having good face off guys is key, how essential it is to build through the draft etc etc and this was smashed 6 weeks into the next season.

I hated Chayka's Patience and Hope statement post trade, it demonstrated a lot of frustration, the decisive nature of the comment not a good sign on professional experience and maturity.

I like Chayka to many extent, but now I am finding myself looking at all the possible mistakes - that's what losing does, I guess. I think he very much remains someone to bet on should he be sacked after ownership changes whilst I believe this will be Tocchet last NHL's head coaching job. Ha this is me being immature now, apologies.

Anyway I just want to say that interestingly 11 of Strome's 14 points have been on even strength. This has surprised me as I have alsways assumed Strome would first have an impact on PP, slower/set up plays.

I hear the argument that it is easier to do well with Kane and Debrincat's line, it is probably true, however it is also possible to argue it is not so easy as it sounds - McDavid has not found one winger that can cope with him in many seasons aside from Drasaitl. You need a good brain to understand what top performers are doing. Perhaps Strome is more brains than skates, and if that's the case he might find his way. So far in his career he always seems to have been able to.

So to conclude I am frustrated that the opportunity to find out if he could be that guy as a Coyote has been taken away with under 50 NHL games under his belt.

 

[johnchayka89]

This is quite the debate...
it’s going to take a lot more than 20 games to see how this all unfolds. These players have a long career ahead of them.

 

[SniperHF]

Yeah but now we get like 40 less games to make a call on what kind of contract he gets.
Maybe we get him cheaper now but I'd rather the additional information first.

 

[ParisSaintGermain]

Really hope Schmaltz won't be handled the Dvorak or Chychrun's type of contracts. We cannot have 75+millions tied up in three players with fresh history of major knees injuries.

 

[cobra427]

Really hope Schmaltz won't be handled the Dvorak or Chychrun's type of contracts. We cannot have 75+millions tied up in three players with fresh history of major knees injuries.

I agree with this. I think Chayka gave out too much term and dollars to both, don't do that with Schmaltz.

 

[SniperHF]

Schmaltz has proven twice(or maybe more...) what those guys have though.

You aren't paying Schmaltz for potential if you sign him long term.

 

[ParisSaintGermain]

This Schmaltz injury is putting Chayka into a massive corner.

In a way he has to sign Schmaltz, all we are going to see from now on and until the end of the season is Strome strome strome Perlini perlini perlini. Oh and Domi.

Very difficult tide to go against without overpaying/overterming/overnontradeclausing, particularly during a likely ownership change.

Run the clock John!

 

[RemoAZ]

Schmaltz has proven twice(or maybe more...) what those guys have though.

You aren't paying Schmaltz for potential if you sign him long term.

The other concerning thing is if you read what the Chicago fans are saying about him, effort is one of the main issues. This could go two ways. The injury could motivate him to turn up the effort to get back to playing sooner and better or the lack of effort could stall his recovery. This really is the worst possible outcome when acquiring a guy the other team got rid of because of contract demands. Looking at Chayka's history and the fact that this trade is huge as far as whatever plan (or lack there of) he has for building this team, I'm expecting another over payment. We'll see. He got Raanta cheaper than I thought probably because of injuries. Hopefully it goes that way and not the Dvo/Chychrun way.

What sucks is all these bigger contracts are going to hit when the team is so desperate for centers. We need to get these wingers out of the center position but there won't be any money to sign one.

 

[Guest]

Forgive me if this has been raised in the discussion, I have tried to follow along but I will admit I have not read all the posts in the threads on this topic.

When someone trades for a player it is funny how that is treated differently than if you are internally developing a player. If you are internally developing a player, you make them work for everything they get, they have to earn their way up through the lineup. Nothing is handed to a player when you are developing them.

When you trade for a player, it seems like they completely miss that whole process. They are traded based on their merits and potential so there is more motivation to get a return on the investment.

That is how I see this trade. Strome had to work his way up the lineup for the Coyotes, but Strome has to show his return on the investment for the Hawks. I know this is similar to what a lot of people are saying about how Colliton is coaching Strome versus Tocchet.

Similarly, players like Schmaltz and Galenyuk are given far more second chances and opportunities than a player developed internally often receive. That's not to say that they are not better players, those two are easily among our top 6 forwards. However, the standards do not seem the same for the players acquired.

Maybe it is not always like this, maybe it should not be like this, but I know this often occurs in business. For example, a common expression in business is that if you want a promotion you have to leave the company and come back. A new asset is always more highly valued than an existing asset.

 

[ParisSaintGermain]

Skilled prospects -> controlled top two liners time + PP minutes and see where it gets them to. If it does not work--> AHL top minutes.

Limited skills prospects-> controlled bottom two lines and see where it takes them. If it does not work, either AHL, trade or waiver.

Don't try to send an email with a typewriter and vice versa.

 

[_Del_]

Schmaltz has proven twice(or maybe more...) what those guys have though.

You aren't paying Schmaltz for potential if you sign him long term.

He had a good year last year.

He started the season 2-9-11 and -4 in 23 games playing mostly with Kane (which according to many in this thread means guaranteed points), and has been questions about his motor.

I really hope we don't do something stupid with his contract.

 

[Jakey53]

A and C are facts, not speculation. IF RT liked Strome, he would have been given top line minutes.

 

[BUX7PHX]

This is quite the debate...
it’s going to take a lot more than 20 games to see how this all unfolds. These players have a long career ahead of them.

I still chuckle every time your avatar pops up and the witty statements appear...

 

[lanky]

A and C are facts, not speculation. IF RT liked Strome, he would have been given top line minutes.

What about the trade request? Hard to state that as fact without any proof.

 

[Jamieh]

Chicago is gonna tell everyone this summer how they view Strome when he is able to sign an extension.

 

[Jakey53]

What about the trade request? Hard to state that as fact without any proof.

I didn't say it was.