Genious: Sami V hype train. Sing along here!

[Finnpin]

I agree. Thread title should be changed. Let's move forward...

 

[Professor John Frink]

EDIT: despite the sarcastic prediction that fits under this thread name, could it be possible to change it to something more neutral? Like just "Sami Vatanen". By the way, do you think it is possible for Vatanen not to lose Calder eligibility this season? Or will he get those 25 games already?

To me this is precisely why the name should stay. In all my years here on HF never have I seen people become so sensitive over a player who hasn't even become a mainstay in the NHL. Does the thread title really matter that much?

As to your second part, I would be shocked at this point if Sami didn't play 25 games in the NHL this season. One of two things would have had to happen. He has a serious injury, or the Ducks make a trade for an established dman. He certainly needs to earn the spot on the team. But Murray has all but said the extra spot on the team is his to lose.

 

[QnebO]

I agree. Thread title should be changed. Let's move forward...

I have been thinking so too for long time actually. I love this player, got familiar with him when he played in Finland, and I think this bull** about him is just stupid. Instead of just banning the troll, the moderators and everyone has joined the troll and put questionable reputation over a player without he's own reason. For an AHL all star, SM-Liiga all star player. Yeah it is a problem for sure. I understand when players are talked about based on their own act, play, style or anything, but Eenok definitely doesn't deserve to change Vatanen's reputation for an joke. Not being a big deal is not a argument that makes it good thing to do wrong. If this Eenok stuff must be continued, the topic should say:" Eenok and other plonkers train (with some Vatanen talk)".

Vatanen had lots of hype but it's not he's fault, he also has already proven in the North America after the hype, that he is not just ordinary short Finnish D-prospect, but one of the better prospects that rarely pop up here if you think of last 10 years.

 

[snarktacular]

I see no reason to change the title. The thread is actually for discussion about Vatanen, good or bad. We have similar threads for other high-profile prospects, although I don't think any others are active ATM.

The title contains an inside joke about actual statements made about Vatanen and is in no way disparaging the player itself. This is also similar to other threads (OT thread, roster discussion thread, etc).

If the purpose of the thread was solely to make fun of the player or the posters who contributed to the hype, then it would have been shut down.

 

[Fallenity]

It'll soon reach 1000 posts and then be done with

 

[Sojourn]

I'm sure someone will think of something clever.

I have been thinking so too for long time actually. I love this player, got familiar with him when he played in Finland, and I think this bull** about him is just stupid. Instead of just banning the troll, the moderators and everyone has joined the troll and put questionable reputation over a player without he's own reason. For an AHL all star, SM-Liiga all star player. Yeah it is a problem for sure. I understand when players are talked about based on their own act, play, style or anything, but Eenok definitely doesn't deserve to change Vatanen's reputation for an joke. Not being a big deal is not a argument that makes it good thing to do wrong. If this Eenok stuff must be continued, the topic should say:" Eenok and other plonkers train (with some Vatanen talk)".

Vatanen had lots of hype but it's not he's fault, he also has already proven in the North America after the hype, that he is not just ordinary short Finnish D-prospect, but one of the better prospects that rarely pop up here if you think of last 10 years.

No one has done anything of the sort. The thread title isn't an attack, or at all derogatory.

 

[DaDucks*]

It'll soon reach 1000 posts and then be done with

Done? Haha no... Things were said, bounties are to be collected.

Do u know how a tsunami works?

 

[Sojourn]

Done? Haha no... Things were said, bounties are to be collected.

Do u know how a tsunami works?

Yeah... no. We're not doing that. This discussion will stay on Vatanen, or it will be closed and all future discussions will take place in the Roster thread.

 

[KHLJokers*]

If Vatanen wont make in the team, you must let him go (trade)

You have so many offensive D-men,,

 

[Vinegar Strokes]

If Vatanen wont make in the team, you must let him go (trade)

You have so many offensive D-men,,

We don't, actually.

Vatanen will make the team, what he does after that will decide how often and how much he plays.

Vatanen's fate is directly tied to Vatanen now. I hope he's training his ass off right now, because this season will be his opportunity.

 

[Sojourn]

If Vatanen wont make in the team, you must let him go (trade)

You have so many offensive D-men,,

Why should Anaheim trade him? If he can't stick in the NHL this season, it would only be because he just isn't quite ready yet. Murray clearly wants to give him a shot in Anaheim, which means Sami's future is in his own hands. Going to another team isn't going to change that, and I don't see why the Ducks need to trade him if that is the case. Why wouldn't they be better off letting him continue to develop? In terms of asset management, that certainly makes more sense for them.

There is a really disconcerting sense of entitlement from some regarding Vatanen. It's like there is a small portion who want him to be handed opportunities, even though other players have to fight to earn those opportunities.

 

[Dr Johnny Fever]

I find it interesting that everybody here has conceded Sami a job in ANA next year because BM says he wants to "force the issue". Just how long does anybody think he will stick if his defense isn't any better than last year? We already have 4 guys who need sheltered minutes on D and they all play better D than Sami. If he can't pull his own weight, it isn't like we have plenty of guys who can carry him.

 

[douglast5]

I find it interesting that everybody here has conceded Sami a job in ANA next year because BM says he wants to "force the issue". Just how long does anybody think he will stick if his defense isn't any better than last year? We already have 4 guys who need sheltered minutes on D and they all play better D than Sami. If he can't pull his own weight, it isn't like we have plenty of guys who can carry him.

Including pre-season, I think Sami only gets 20-30 games at the very most.

A good look is more then 5 games or whatever he played, but definitely not guaranteeing a rookie top 6.

 

[xxreact9]

I find it interesting that everybody here has conceded Sami a job in ANA next year because BM says he wants to "force the issue". Just how long does anybody think he will stick if his defense isn't any better than last year? We already have 4 guys who need sheltered minutes on D and they all play better D than Sami. If he can't pull his own weight, it isn't like we have plenty of guys who can carry him.

This is a great point. On that note, we could even see lindholm over vatanen if his defensive game hasn't taken big strides, or the other 6 under contract. I really don't see Sami as a shoe-in. If he was, souray would've been bought out.

I

 

[Sojourn]

I find it interesting that everybody here has conceded Sami a job in ANA next year because BM says he wants to "force the issue". Just how long does anybody think he will stick if his defense isn't any better than last year? We already have 4 guys who need sheltered minutes on D and they all play better D than Sami. If he can't pull his own weight, it isn't like we have plenty of guys who can carry him.

I think it's rather that everyone has conceded that Vatanen will have an opportunity to show he belongs. Sticking with the team is another matter, and that's why I think it's really up to Vatanen. Now, to me, becoming a regular in the NHL is going to require him to prove he has what it takes on both sides of the ice. We can't afford someone who can't carry their own weight on defense. This blue line just isn't strong enough.

Personally, I'm not going to make any assumptions that he deserves to stick until he proves he does. The same goes for someone like Lindholm, Etem, Rakell, DSP, or any other prospect we have. I don't like seeing spots handed to rookies. Earn it, and prove you can keep it.

 

[2faded]

I find it interesting that everybody here has conceded Sami a job in ANA next year because BM says he wants to "force the issue". Just how long does anybody think he will stick if his defense isn't any better than last year? We already have 4 guys who need sheltered minutes on D and they all play better D than Sami. If he can't pull his own weight, it isn't like we have plenty of guys who can carry him.

I find it interesting that everyone here is such an expert on defense. His defense wasn't nearly as bad as people here want to make it out to be.

So what if we have 4 guys that also need sheltered minutes who are better at D? What if they aren't better at offense? Having a team full of #4-5's that cant move the puck to save their life isnt getting us anywhere.

 

[2faded]

I think it's rather that everyone has conceded that Vatanen will have an opportunity to show he belongs. Sticking with the team is another matter, and that's why I think it's really up to Vatanen. Now, to me, becoming a regular in the NHL is going to require him to prove he has what it takes on both sides of the ice. We can't afford someone who can't carry their own weight on defense. This blue line just isn't strong enough.

Personally, I'm not going to make any assumptions that he deserves to stick until he proves he does. The same goes for someone like Lindholm, Etem, Rakell, DSP, or any other prospect we have. I don't like seeing spots handed to rookies. Earn it, and prove you can keep it.

This is simply not true. Not every Dman, probably majority of D in the NHL cannot play both sides of the ice. A lot of people stick being good at one and avg to below avg at the other. The fact that Sami can POSSIBLY bring what we are seriously lacking gives him a pretty decent shot at sticking.

Now, if he doesnt produce at a decent clip, back to the AHL it is.

 

[Sojourn]

I find it interesting that everyone here is such an expert on defense. His defense wasn't nearly as bad as people here want to make it out to be.

So what if we have 4 guys that also need sheltered minutes who are better at D? What if they aren't better at offense? Having a team full of #4-5's that cant move the puck to save their life isnt getting us anywhere.

You kind of just pointed exactly to the problem... and that's that, to be competitive, the Ducks need a deeper, better blue line. What you're suggesting doesn't solve the problem. It just shifts things around, and requires us to lean more heavily on the defensemen that we have who can do the job defensively. That isn't a solution. If Vatanen is going to have a spot on the team, it needs to be because he doesn't need to be sheltered so much defensively, while also helping move the puck.

This is simply not true. Not every Dman, probably majority of D in the NHL cannot play both sides of the ice. A lot of people stick being good at one and avg to below avg at the other. The fact that Sami can POSSIBLY bring what we are seriously lacking gives him a pretty decent shot at sticking.

Now, if he doesnt produce at a decent clip, back to the AHL it is.

No, the majority of the D in the NHL can't play on both sides of the ice, but guess what? The ones that stick? They stick because they can do the job defensively. How many one-dimensional offensive defensemen do you see in the NHL? And, of those offensive defensemen, how many of them stick because their team can afford to use them because they have the depth to handle it? A defenseman needs to be able to play defense in the NHL. That is their job description. Vatanen needs to show competence on both sides because he's an offensive defenseman.

 

[2faded]

You kind of just pointed exactly to the problem... and that's that, to be competitive, the Ducks need a deeper, better blue line. What you're suggesting doesn't solve the problem. It just shifts things around, and requires us to lean more heavily on the defensemen that we have who can do the job defensively. That isn't a solution. If Vatanen is going to have a spot on the team, it needs to be because he doesn't need to be sheltered so much defensively, while also helping move the puck.

Who does the job offensively from the back end then? It's all about playing defense?

Fowler going to carry the offensive load for our entire back end?

I keep hearing how he can only stick if his defense improves because our D needs to play both sides? So, are you saying that all of our current D can play both sides of the ice?

And also, what is the solution then. If we arent making changes through a trade we have to go with what we got.

 

[Sojourn]

Who does the job offensively from the back end then? It's all about playing defense?

Fowler going to carry the offensive load for our entire back end?

I keep hearing how he can only stick if his defense improves because our D needs to play both sides? So, are you saying that all of our current D can play both sides of the ice?

Read the rest.

Believe it or not, this part isn't actually about Vatanen, it's about what is best for the team.

 

[2faded]

You kind of just pointed exactly to the problem... and that's that, to be competitive, the Ducks need a deeper, better blue line. What you're suggesting doesn't solve the problem. It just shifts things around, and requires us to lean more heavily on the defensemen that we have who can do the job defensively. That isn't a solution. If Vatanen is going to have a spot on the team, it needs to be because he doesn't need to be sheltered so much defensively, while also helping move the puck.



No, the majority of the D in the NHL can't play on both sides of the ice, but guess what? The ones that stick? They stick because they can do the job defensively. How many one-dimensional offensive defensemen do you see in the NHL? And, of those offensive defensemen, how many of them stick because their team can afford to use them because they have the depth to handle it? A defenseman needs to be able to play defense in the NHL. That is their job description. Vatanen needs to show competence on both sides because he's an offensive defenseman.

So, the majority of D in the NHL cant play both sides of the ice, but those players dont stick. Why are they the majority then? Someone's sticking.

 

[Sojourn]

So, the majority of D in the NHL cant play both sides of the ice, but those players dont stick. Why are they the majority then? Someone's sticking.

You might want to slow down and actually read what I'm typing. I answered your question. The ones who can't play on both sides of the ice stick because they are defensive defensemen.

 

[2faded]

Read the rest.

Believe it or not, this part isn't actually about Vatanen, it's about what is best for the team.

That's the point. Arent we lacking offense? Wouldnt that balance out our D more. What im getting at is that people say if he can only play offense itll hurt the team. Look right back at the Det series how the other side of that also hurts the team. Maybe a little of each helps?\

Shouldnt have said offense. Puck movement is a better choice of words.

 

[Sojourn]

That's the point. Arent we lacking offense? Wouldnt that balance out our D more. What im getting at is that people say if he can only play offense itll hurt the team. Look right back at the Det series how the other side of that also hurts the team. Maybe a little of each helps?\

Shouldnt have said offense. Puck movement is a better choice of words.

You're not looking at the big picture here(and yes, offense was a very poor choice of words):

If Vatanen can't carry his weight defensively(and, let me be clear, this is hypothetical right now), how many opportunities do you think he's going to get to move the puck out of the D zone? If you were Boudreau, would you give him defensive starts, if you were worried about his defensive game? On the PP? Absolutely. In the offensive zone? You bet. Neutral zone? Probably. But in the defensive zone? For a player who, in this discussion, isn't good enough defensively? No, that's exactly the situation you want to keep him out of, because moving the puck out of the D zone requires that you have the puck to begin with.

Edit: Furthermore, and again this is hypothetical, we know that Lindholm can move the puck. If he just does a better job defensively, why wouldn't Anaheim use him instead? I mean, if we're going with an unproven player, he has as much upside as anyone.

 

[Sojourn]

I just want to reiterate that we're talking about a hypothetical situation here, and that is: What if Vatanen can't carry his weight defensively? No one is asking him to be a shutdown guy, or to go up against the best forwards in the league. The question is: Can he play NHL level defense? And I don't think it's that far-fetched to suggest he could have problems sticking if he can't. The exception to this is if he can absolutely light it up offensively.

I don't see why it's so unreasonable to ask the same thing from Vatanen that we'd expect from any other defenseman. Look at Holland. Did we just hand him a spot last season, even though he needed to work on parts of his game? Do you think the Ducks should just hand him a spot this season?