Injury Report: Jesperi Kotkaniemi (Part IX)

[Tighthead]

Is that because you're expecting him to have a terrible offseason, show up to camp out of shape, completely blow it at training camp?

Because otherwise...there's no logic in that, with all due respect.

Because I think he needs to play top line minutes and dominate. Although I don’t think last year was bad for his development, I don’t think it was close to optimal either. But I know development is a myth to most people on here.

 

[417]

Because I think he needs to play top line minutes and dominate. Although I don’t think last year was bad for his development, I don’t think it was close to optimal either. But I know development is a myth to most people on here.

What's you're proposing is not development...it's not that development is a myth to most people on here, I think it's most people on here think development can only be about putting up a lot of points and they think doing it at levels that don't challenge a player will lead to greater development.

I couldn't disagree more with this notion.

Playing him at an inferior level of competition, after he proved he could play AND develop IN the NHL this past year is an odd move to say the least.

Why not send Poehling & Suzuki to the ECHL using that same logic.

There won't be any room for them in the top 6 if if Evans & Kotkaniemi are there.

Alexander Romanov played a small role on a very good team, in the KHL, when most were clamoring for him to be sent down to whatever you call the Russian junior league (MHL I think).

Yet no prospect had a greater rate of growth/development in his game then he did this past year.

Points does not necessarily = development.

 

[Tighthead]

What's you're proposing is not development...

Playing him at an inferior level of competition, after he proved he could play AND develop IN the NHL this past year is an odd move to say the least.

Why not send Poehling & Suzuki to the ECHL using that same logic.

There won't be any room for them in the top if if Evans & Kotkaniemi are there.

If he proved he could play and develop why was he unable to score on the road?

Why was he exhausted?

Why was his ice time diminished?

Why was he moved to the wing?

Why was he scratched?

If his development was successful, why did he play his worst hockey at the end of the season?

 

[417]

If he proved he could play and develop why was he unable to score on the road?

Again...the only way you equate development is with points.

If that's how you want to view development, then I totally understand this narrow point of view.

I just don't share it whatsoever.

Why was he exhausted?

Because he was 18yrs old and played a ton of hockey...he was exhausted just like all the 23 players on the roster.

Every single player on this roster struggled down the stretch...why you choose to pick on an 18yr old as someone who should have performed different, i'm not sure.

Why was his ice time diminished?

Because as the games got more meaningful, the coach used players with more experience.

Why was he moved to the wing?

He was used on the wing for 2 out the 79 NHL games he played last year.

Why is a 2 game sample more meaningful to you then a 77 game sample?

Why was he scratched?

See previous answers

If his development was successful, why did he play his worst hockey at the end of the season?

Because development isn't solely about an upwards trend...it's also about struggling and learning to overcome said struggles, which for an 18yr old, is perfectly normal.

 

[Habs Halifax]

If he proved he could play and develop why was he unable to score on the road?

Why was he exhausted?

Why was his ice time diminished?

Why was he moved to the wing?

Why was he scratched?

If his development was successful, why did he play his worst hockey at the end of the season?

Said this before and will say it again... I did not like inserting Kotkaniemi into our line-up as a 18 year old cause he won the 3C job over Pleky, DLR, and Peca. He showed some of his potential but I would of preferred a more gradual momentum development path. Right now he is our golden boy but none of us really know how good he will be.

As far as your last point, the games got tougher and Kotkaneimi didn't have another level. Imagine the distraction to the team and Kotkaniemi if we have to send him down to Laval for a few games next year like we did with Mete? Not the end of the world but it's also not how I would of managed this asset.

I believe we were premature by inserting him in the line-up so fast cause our center depth was shitty

 

[Tighthead]

Again...the only way you equate development is with points.

If that's how you want to view development, then I totally understand this narrow point of view.

I just don't share it whatsoever.


Because he was 18yrs old and played a ton of hockey...he was exhausted just like all the 23 players on the roster.

Every single player on this roster struggled down the stretch...why you choose to pick on an 18yr old as someone who should have performed different, i'm not sure.


Because as the games got more meaningful, the coach used players with more experience.


He was used on the wing for 2 out the 79 NHL games he played last year.

Why is a 2 game sample more meaningful to you then a 77 game sample?


See previous answers


Because development isn't solely about an upwards trend...it's also about struggling and learning to overcome said struggles, which for an 18yr old, is perfectly normal.

Quite specifically where I have said that development is strictly measured by points.

I dispute that completely. Use my actual words or withdraw that assertion from your argument. You can also withdraw the suggestion that I’m narrow minded if you are comfortable not bending my words. I thought you were better than that.

Were the two games on the wing at the start of the season, or at the end of the season? It has nothing to do with sample size. I wasn't extrapolating anything. It’s the trajectory of his season. Do you see the difference?

I’m picking on a player in a thread that is about him?

Please direct me to a more appropriate venue where I can discuss him without being accused of being unfair. Or tell me what players I have to reference in every post about him so that I will meet the standards of fairness to which you allude.

How do you know the coach was relying solely on experience and not at all on performance? I’ll need a source on that one, thanks.

 

[417]

Said this before and will say it again... I did not like inserting Kotkaniemi into our line-up as a 18 year old cause he won the 3C job over Pleky, DLR, and Peca. He showed some of his potential but I would of preferred a more gradual momentum development path. Right now he is our golden boy but none of us really know how good he will be.

As far as your last point, the games got tougher and Kotkaneimi didn't have another level. Imagine the distraction to the team and Kotkaniemi if we have to send him down to Laval for a few games next year like we did with Mete? Not the end of the world but it's also not how I would of managed this asset.

I believe we were premature by inserting him in the line-up so fast cause our center depth was ****ty

Mete got sent down so he could work on some things...

He's advocating sending Kotkaniemi down purely to put up points against weaker opposition, as though, that's a harbinger of future NHL success more then playing against actual NHL competition.

Using that logic, Jordan Weal should be our #1C...we're talking about a player who was dominant in the AHL.

 

[Tighthead]

Said this before and will say it again... I did not like inserting Kotkaniemi into our line-up as a 18 year old cause he won the 3C job over Pleky, DLR, and Peca. He showed some of his potential but I would of preferred a more gradual momentum development path. Right now he is our golden boy but none of us really know how good he will be.

As far as your last point, the games got tougher and Kotkaneimi didn't have another level. Imagine the distraction to the team and Kotkaniemi if we have to send him down to Laval for a few games next year like we did with Mete? Not the end of the world but it's also not how I would of managed this asset.

I believe we were premature by inserting him in the line-up so fast cause our center depth was ****ty

I don’t think they ruined him and I don’t think it was a disaster. But I think he triumphed as a result of low expectations. He also had periods where he looked solid in many aspects of the game.

Burnout at his age/size/experience was predictable and he still hit an obvious wall. I just don’t think there was much of a plan.

 

[Tighthead]

Mete got sent down so he could work on some things...

He's advocating sending Kotkaniemi down purely to put up points against weaker opposition, as though, that's a harbinger of future NHL success more then playing against actual NHL competition.

Using that logic, Jordan Weal should be our #1C...we're talking about a player who was dominant in the AHL.

Quote where I said it’s about points. You’ve said his twice now.

Direct. Quote.

As per the Weal idiocy, where did I say that NHL playing time should be based on AHL dominance? I’ll need a quote on that one too.

You’ve been a decent poster in the past, but he level of arrogance and animosity in this thread is an embarrassment. Not sure why you need to suggest I’m illogical and ignorant and twist my words.

Oh well, I’ll just block you.

Congrats.

 

[Habs Halifax]

Mete got sent down so he could work on some things...

He's advocating sending Kotkaniemi down purely to put up points against weaker opposition, as though, that's a harbinger of future NHL success more then playing against actual NHL competition.

Using that logic, Jordan Weal should be our #1C...we're talking about a player who was dominant in the AHL.

What's done is done. It was just not my preferred strategy.

Mete showed up this past year and was surprised very quickly that you need to stay hungry to improve. Being send down to the AHL was an eye opener for him cause when he came back, he was a different player. Kotkaniemi needs to bust his ass off this summer and not take anything for granted. Show up to camp with the mindset that he has to earn the job all over again. He has stiffer competition at center this year. Danault, Domi, Kotkaniemi, Weal, Poehling, Suzuki, Thompson, Peca, Evans.

I'm not sending Kotkaniemi down unless he struggles

 

[417]

Quite specifically where I have said that development is strictly measured by points.

You said

"Because I think he needs to play top line minutes and dominate"

What else am I to take from that statement? I made sure to ask you why first and that was your response.

Not "I think he needs to improve on his 2 way game"...not "I don't think he's physically prepared".

I dispute that completely. Use my actual words or withdraw that assertion from your argument. You can also withdraw the suggestion that I’m narrow minded if you are comfortable not bending my words. I thought you were better than that.

I never said you were narrow minded, i'm not talking about you or your character...just your opinion specifically as it relates to sending Kotkaniemi down to Laval next year.

Were the two games on the wing at the start of the season, or at the end of the season? It has nothing to do with sample size. I wasn't extrapolating anything. It’s the trajectory of his season. Do you see the difference?

The trajectory of his season is not to ignore the 77 games where he played every second of his ice time as a center and to just focus on the 2 games, not discussing context, where he was used on the wing.

BUT, if that's the logic you want to use...the last game of the season, he played center. So his trajectory is still that of a center.

I’m picking on a player in a thread that is about him?

Please direct me to a more appropriate venue where I can discuss him without being accused of being unfair. Or tell me what players I have to reference in every post about him so that I will meet the standards of fairness to which you allude.

It's just that I find it odd to ask those questions, it's like you're ignoring all context.

How do you know the coach was relying solely on experience and not at all on performance? I’ll need a source on that one, thanks.

I'm sure it was a combination of both.

But for reference (see bolded remarks especially)

"The rookie centre played only two shifts in the final period, logging 40 seconds of ice time, before getting benched and finishing the game with a season-low 7:56 of ice time. Head coach Claude Julien said after the game that Kotkaniemi is a young player still learning the game and that he let his man go on two or three shifts that resulted in scoring chances for the Blackhawks. The benching came after Kotkaniemi was a healthy scratch for two games on a California road trip early this month."

"No. Not at all, guys. Not at all,” Julien said. “Geez, he’s 18 years old. There’s times he’s going to have some struggles. You know what? I’ve got to do what’s best for the team first and foremost. If I don’t bench him and he ends up costing us a goal or a game … let’s say that happens and we don’t make the playoffs. Are we going to say: ‘Oh, didn’t make the playoffs, but Kotkaniemi kept playing’? We’ve got to balance things out and … you do what you have to do to win a hockey game."

Canadiens coach Claude Julien defends benching of Jesperi Kotkaniemi

 

[Habs Halifax]

I don’t think they ruined him and I don’t think it was a disaster. But I think he triumphed as a result of low expectations. He also had periods where he looked solid in many aspects of the game.

Burnout at his age/size/experience was predictable and he still hit an obvious wall. I just don’t think there was much of a plan.

I agree what your narrative. I liked the potential I saw but his puck possession was not great for a center and he needs to work at getting stronger. His vision, shot, and how he positions himself was very solid for a 18 year old. He's a smart kid.

Moving forward? None of us know if he stalls or gets better.

 

[Tighthead]

Don’t worry 417, I’m not going to argue with someone who questions my logic and then draws ridiculous inference from things I didn’t even say.

My fault. I had you on the list of people with whom a reasonable disagreement was possible.

I’m dumb, no logic, development is points, Suzuki to the ECHL, Weal 1C.

You’ve got me figured out.

 

[417]

I don’t think they ruined him and I don’t think it was a disaster. But I think he triumphed as a result of low expectations. He also had periods where he looked solid in many aspects of the game.

Burnout at his age/size/experience was predictable and he still hit an obvious wall. I just don’t think there was much of a plan.

Being drafted 3rd overall...by the Montreal Canadiens and playing the entire season with the team?

There's no such thing as low expectations for anyone playing on the Montreal Canadiens.

 

[Tighthead]

Dominate is points? Where did I say that?

Two way play can’t be dominant? Who said that?

 

[417]

Quote where I said it’s about points. You’ve said his twice now.

Direct. Quote.

When YOU posted that it was about Kotkaniemi "dominating"...were you referring to points?

I mean, what else could you be referring too?

As per the Weal idiocy, where did I say that NHL playing time should be based on AHL dominance? I’ll need a quote on that one too.

Sigh...you said you'd want to send Kotkaniemi down to the AHL so he could "play top minutes and dominate" (an exact quote).

So I used Jordan Weal as an example...he played top minutes and dominated.

So I asked, should we make him the #1C based on that?

You’ve been a decent poster in the past, but he level of arrogance and animosity in this thread is an embarrassment. Not sure why you need to suggest I’m illogical and ignorant and twist my words.

I don't mean to come off arrogant...I asked you to clarify your point and you respond sarcastically.

So I responded in kind.

 

[417]

Don’t worry 417, I’m not going to argue with someone who questions my logic and then draws ridiculous inference from things I didn’t even say.

My fault. I had you on the list of people with whom a reasonable disagreement was possible.

I’m dumb, no logic, development is points, Suzuki to the ECHL, Weal 1C.

You’ve got me figured out.

I'm sorry you feel i've been derogatory towards you...I don't know you from a hole in the wall. I've got no issue with you whatsoever.

But I asked you to clarify your position and you seem to be ducking the discussion, so i'm forced to draw conclusions based on the response you provide me with.

No hard feelings...

 

[Paddyjack]

When YOU posted that it was about Kotkaniemi "dominating"...were you referring to points?

I mean, what else could you be referring too?


Sigh...you said you'd want to send Kotkaniemi down to the AHL so he could "play top minutes and dominate" (an exact quote).

So I used Jordan Weal as an example...he played top minutes and dominated.

So I asked, should we make him the #1C based on that?


I don't mean to come off arrogant...I asked you to clarify your point and you respond sarcastically.

So I responded in kind.

I'm sorry 417 but I have to disagree with your argument. I think everyone pretty knew what he meant by "play top minutes and dominate", as in gaining confidence in his abilities to translate better in NHL. Heck, the same argument was used by many users here regarding Mete. I think we all know the difference between a top player sent down to AHL to step up his progress compared to a AHL-lifer winning the scoring championship

 

[417]

I'm sorry 417 but I have to disagree with your argument. I think everyone pretty knew what he meant by "play top minutes and dominate", as in gaining confidence in his abilities to translate better in NHL. Heck, the same argument was used by many users here regarding Mete. I think we all know the difference between a top player sent down to AHL to step up his progress compared to a AHL-lifer winning the scoring championship

I wasn't interpreting his post on behalf of everyone else...just for myself. That's how I understood it.

But that's fine, I already apologized for going @ him the way I did.

Its all good.

 

[The Great Weal]

I truly hope he doesnt play with Lehkonen and Armia again... sign a Nyquist or MoJo to play with him

 

[CHarlie]

The all kid line.....Poeling Kotkaniemi Suzuki

 

[RyderRocks73]

Said this before and will say it again... I did not like inserting Kotkaniemi into our line-up as a 18 year old cause he won the 3C job over Pleky, DLR, and Peca. He showed some of his potential but I would of preferred a more gradual momentum development path. Right now he is our golden boy but none of us really know how good he will be.

As far as your last point, the games got tougher and Kotkaneimi didn't have another level. Imagine the distraction to the team and Kotkaniemi if we have to send him down to Laval for a few games next year like we did with Mete? Not the end of the world but it's also not how I would of managed this asset.

I believe we were premature by inserting him in the line-up so fast cause our center depth was ****ty

He only played 3C and he was better at it than other options that we had. I think he grew from this year and he'll be a better player for us if he can condition and build strength properly this off-season after his surgery.

 

[Canadienna]

If he ends next season still getting 3C minutes I won't be happy.

Didn't like seeing him benched either, he wasn't playing great but I feel like the coaching just threw him off more.

He needs to establish himself in the top 6 this year imo. Take on the tougher matchups, and be a significant threat offensively. That's my expectation anyway. I don't feel it's too high, from what we saw glimpses of last year this kid can play.

 

[Non Player Canadiens]

The all kid line.....Poeling Kotkaniemi Suzuki

seems like a bad idea

love the young talent we've got going though

 

[the valiant effort]

I don’t worry for a moment about KK’s future, despite Julien’s history of ruining KHL legends like 6-time Gagarin Cup champ Phil Kessel and 2-time Putin Memorial Trophy winner Tyler Seguin.