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?
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.
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?
If Vatanen wont make in the team, you must let him go (trade)
You have so many offensive D-men,,
If Vatanen wont make in the team, you must let him go (trade)
You have so many offensive D-men,,
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 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 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 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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.