First of all, that question can be applied to all the teams with their picks and prospects in the NHL. Should they all keep several spots open 'just in case'? Overall, one doesn't actually stand in the way of the other. It's like turning a better paying job than you currently have because you plan to start your own business... One doesn't stand in the way of the other and you still taking a step forward as oppose to sitting in a gutter because you have 'high hopes'. Hope for the best but expect the worst. However, if in the very unlikely event that happens than Hollands job will probably be to unload some of the roster players for futures while moving in the young guns.
Speculation: Roster Turn Over
- Thread starter Leadzedder
- Start date
First of all, that question can be applied to all the teams with their picks and prospects in the NHL. Should they all keep several spots open 'just in case'? Overall, one doesn't actually stand in the way of the other. It's like turning a better paying job than you currently have because you plan to start your own business... One doesn't stand in the way of the other and you still taking a step forward as oppose to sitting in a gutter because you have 'high hopes'. Hope for the best but expect the worst. However, if in the very unlikely event that happens than Hollands job will probably be to unload some of the roster players for futures while moving in the young guns.
Wow I can feel your smug arrogance through the screen haha. Ironic talking about me being arrogant haha.
And yet you still miss the point. Your whole argument against bringing in our current youth is that past youth failed in certain spots. You talk about pulk and sproul, yet ignore larkin and Mantha. You talk about how our youth d like sproul were bad, yet ignore how bad our vets were. I'm done arguing with someone who doesn't want to think logically and thinks they are some genius here trying to educate our tiny minds who have never watched hockey before. Ciao
Yes, I am arrogant towards those who think they will win a debate by knowingly flipping their argument away from where it actually stands. Okay, Lol, go ahead, remind me how we held back Mantha and Larkin.. I dare you! Go ahead, remind me how Sproul was at any point better than any of the vets we had... I dare you! Show me this logic you speak of!
No not necessarily. Especially given the scenario (as was portrayed here, which is speculative to begin with) that he pretty much threw a fit and withdrew because there were those who were higher up on the food chain. No you look out see what they doing and push yourself to do better. Of course, it's all easier said than done but that is life, plain and simple.
Henkka
Registered User
Jensen.
Or you trade a forward, Like Glendening to Toronto and go with 8th D.
Why everything has to be so complicated? There's totally possible moves. There will be takers for our players if needed.
Pavels Dog
Registered User
My guess would be that Ras, Zadina and one of Hronek/Cholo make the team out of camp while the other 2 go to GR and are the first call-ups.
Svech had such a rough season that it might not be enough to simply have a good camp for him to make it, IF both Ras and Zadina play as good or better. Holland has been open to the possbility of running 8 D, but he'd probably prefer that Cholo or Hronek get big minutes in GR at least to start the season.
See i dont know of any other team thats a bottom five team that maxes out the cap and that employs as many players at the advanced ages we do.
I am open to the possibility that their is another exact same team constructed in the exact same manner.
I can admit when i am wrong
So what are the defensive pairings that you are thinking here?
Again cholo and hronek earned their roster spot exactly as you said they would have to exactly as you believe ken holland said would happen.
Are they benching kronwall?
Are they playing cholo only 7th dman 7 mins a game?
Henkka
Registered User
They are benching somebody. 7th D usually plays 50-70 games per season. THIS IS PROVEN FACT.
Why act like 7th D never plays at all. ?
Same like 13-14th forwards. Our TOP12 forward did miss 145 games at 2016-17 season for example. There's 72+73 games for 13-14 forwards to be played. At last season it was 111 games. 55+56 to be split up.
Simple facts. This feels like I have to teach some basic hockey facts for a 7-year-old.
They are benching somebody. 7th D usually plays 50-70 games per season. THIS IS PROVEN FACT.
Why act like 7th D never plays at all. ?
Same like 13-14th forwards. Our TOP12 forward did miss 145 games at 2016-17 season for example. There's 72+73 games for 13-14 forwards to be played.
Simple facts. This feels like I have to teach some basic hockey facts for a 7-year-old.
Not at all
Answer the question
The defence pairings are?
Do you believe holland will allow blashill to bench hronek or cholo and/or play them limited minutes?
If no, okay great. So they bench a healthy green? Dekeyser? Daley? Kronwall? Ericsson?
You're too damn scared to admit that will never happen nor would holland ever allow hrinek or cholo to sit in the press box or play 10 minutes a night vs playing in grand rapids regardless of weather they "earned their spot because of their play in camp"
You dance around answering the question, just be honest.
Nobody is hurt.
Hronek and cholo are the best two dmen coming out of camp, what exactly happens given who we have signed?
Pavels Dog
Registered User
One or both are on roster, Jensen/Kronner outside lineup would be my guess.
So they would bench a healthy kronwall?
I mean i would never assume or wish for him to be hurt so i am hoping he is healthy and wants to play...
So;
Daley-green
Dekeyser- cholo
Ericsson-Hronek
And we're benching a healthy assistant captain loyal soldier kronwall?
If you talking actual dollar figures then the only people who can reasonably be concerned with it are the owners. (It's their money after all) When it comes to actual cap, moves can always be made as have been before. Odds are, all the vets we have on the team will become extra picks the year the contracts run out, by which time we might just have a set core of top players while still taking shots at it in the draft.
I see waaaay more upside to using kids than signing vets. I recognize the downsides of using kids, but when you're rebuilding I'm not sure it's actually a downside.
And I don't see much difference in how kids would compete for a spot with or without vets. Right now we have plausibly 3 guys competing for a d-spot (Hronek, Cholowski, Hicketts). We have 3 guys competing for a forward spot (Ras, Svech, Zadina). I don't think those guys compete any less hard just because there's not some 30+ year old vet also in that mix competing for a spot. It just seems like a waste of cap space and roster flexibility. Both of which we could leverage into picks/prospects with other teams.
Pavels Dog
Registered User
Maybe Kronner gets a few games for old time’s sake before he’s scratched. But if Hronek/Cholo are truly our best D what are you gonna do? Kronner was our #5 last year, he is slipping in the ranks captain or not.
It's not just competition but who they take their cues from. When I had more hair on my head, my friend and I, every day at 9 pm use to hit the gym and lift weight. When he moved and I tried to go with another friend of mine and he sat down and started to read a book, well, my gym days were pretty much over. Its also sometimes not about being the hardest skater or being able to go around several player etc, etc... You know Datsyuk is quoted on the record of Bowman telling him how he only needed to beat his guy once. (This was after he made Adam Foote dance left to right behind the net) It was nice for us fans to see such a show and we surely encouraged it but think of the depth of what Bowman was actually telling him.
I don't see how roster flexibility gets killed either especially when you have (which isn't a given in your scenario) multiple players that can fill a spot. I would think it'd the other way around actually.
Henkka
Registered User
These are our healthy soldiers from last 3 seasons.
Kronwall 79-57-64 games, avarage 66
Ericsson, 81-51-71 , average 67
Green, 66-72-74, average 70
Dekeyser, 65-82-78, average 75
Daley, 77-56-82, average 72
----------------------
So our TOP5 misses 16+15+12+7+10 = 60 games per season on average, combined.
6th defenceman plays 82 games. There's 82+60=142 games to be split for 6th-7th defencemen. 71 games for both.
What we could probably see, is Jensen playing 80 games, and Cholowski and Hronek split that 60 games, 30 for both. Majority of the season AHL.
Last edited:
You kill roster flexibility when you give yourself fewer slots by jamming it up with vets.
I think we have more than enough players who can fill that role. I don't think Vanek is going to make much difference. There are plenty of hard workers on the team. Plenty of veterans. High skill guys who've been around for years. We always trot this out every single season as justification. I don't see it.
Pavels Dog
Registered User
Not really. The most important thing when it comes to flexibility is; how many good players do you have? Doesn't matter if you have 10 roster spots open if you have no one good to fill them with. Sure it's "flexibility" because you can choose what garbage prospects or what bargain bin FAs to fill those spots with, but in reality you have no flexibility because the end result is always the same: you suck.
On the other hand if you have 30 players that are NHL caliber and a decent number of good ones, you may not have much room for all of them but it creates all sorts of flexibility in terms of enabling you to make trades without creating holes in the roster.
Reality is that it's a much better situation in terms of flexibility to have too many good players than not enough. If we have several kids winning jobs in camp, we can just waive Frk and Witkowski and maybe trade Jensen for a pick (sounds like there is interest around the league). On the other hand if no kids look like they want jobs and we had 3-4 empty spots on the roster, you're in a much less flexible situation and end up forced into some less than optimal solutions.
And while everyone is thinking about rosters only as 100% healthy, we know that injuries happen and if everyone who can handle the NHL is already in the NHL, you're forced to play kids that simply shouldn't be playing. Is that flexibility?
Frk It
Mo Seider Less Problems
- Jul 27, 2010
- 36,246
- 14,755
In a vacuum, maybe.
Our problen is we have a slew of guys good enough to block a prospect but also have minimal trade value.
Pavels Dog
Registered User
Yeah that limits us in what we can do, but there’s still 5-6 players that can be easily traded/waived to make room. The better the kids play the more incentive there is to pull the trigger on those moves.
vladdy16
Registered User
- Aug 2, 2005
- 2,551
- 375
That's not anyone's whole argument against bringing in youth, and the framework of your argument is not based on logic.
vladdy16
Registered User
- Aug 2, 2005
- 2,551
- 375
Coaches and scouts aren't always going to be right, or more accurate than fans/the public. They will 100% of the time be more informed however.
So..
Is it fair to say that no matter how good they play in camp that of itself wont necessarily be good enough?
I 100% know the team will not bench a healthy kronwall for anything more than a token game here or there(ie we play 4 games in 7 nights perhaps he rests for a game)
I 100% know the team will never bench a healthy green, daley, dekeyser or ericsson
I 100% know the team will never pressbox cholo or Hronek vs playing big minutes in grandrapids
So no matter how good they both play, both will not make the team out of camp because if a deliberate lack of roster flexability
Ken Holland will keep signing veteran players until the kids show they are ready to be full time NHL players. You can't give them all roster spots without any prior pro experience. THere's no history there. Let's say they are all given roster spots and quickly show they aren't ready for the NHL. Then what?
