Sheldon Keefe Discussion

[biotk]

Also note that Sandin is the only one of these guys that played for a team that finished even in the top 20 in the standings.

None of that has even the slightest to do with proper vs bad development. Sbisa was the second youngest D playing in 2008-09. Mueller was the third youngest D playing in 2014/15. Both were "developed" very similar to, and just as badly as, Sandin is being developed.

 

[zeke]

Backlund is their 3C right now. And he's been a ridiculous 55CF% player for the last 3-4 seasons. He alone gives them a massive edge over Toronto.

Then there's Bennett who isn't just a tough guy. He's also a guy who's top 50 in ixG/60 over the past 3-4 seasons.

Lmao.

1. Backlund is their 5th or 6th best forward. If they choose to play him on their 3rd line for depth, that's fine. Just like the leafs can play Hyman and Mikheyev on the 3rd line for depth.

2. Last 2yrs, Even Strength:

Hyman 15:18toi, 16gl/34pt pace, 53.0cf%, 54.0xgf%
Mikheyev 13:12toi, 10gl/39pt pace, 52.5cf%, 53.1xgf%
Backlund 14:16toi, 9gl/32pt pace, 50.6cf%, 51.4xgf%
Kerfoot 12:50toi, 10gl/30pt pace, 52.6cf%, 50.6xgf%

3. Lol Bennett being even a "tough guy", let alone MORE than one.

 

[IPS]

Yes, I did read his post that was massively misleading. I saw him include picks from the top of the first round (including lottery picks) to skew the numbers towards his narrative, and utilize AHL games played as his measure for literally no reason other than to further skew the results, as he knew that both Sandin and Liljegren played in the AHL years before the majority of players are even allowed to.

The question is, did you read my post:

As you can see, Sandin is not behind at all in his development. The large majority of successful defensemen picked within Sandin's range had not made the NHL full-time at this point in Sandin's development. This includes top pairing and top-4 defensemen.

The claims that there are issues with his development are completely baseless.

Can only wait and see eh?

I just know for an absolute fact that if I told any of you 3 years ago that Dermott is going to make precisely zero progress developing in the NHL during his first 3 years in the league I'd have gotten called crazy. It's the same route that Sandin and Liljegren are going down.

Eventually the results are going to speak for themselves and I'll happy to be proven wrong.

 

[biotk]

If there was an AHL for these guys to play in right now, I don't think this would be as big an issue, no?

As big an issue, no.

But still an issue. It would still be the case that they were brought into the NHL before they were ready to become permanent players - something that Dubas said the organization would never do for prospects their age because it is too harmful. It would still be the case the team didn't value their development enough to ensure they were playing in overseas in the fall because the threat of the AHL not playing was always there - and the reality is that if/when the AHL gets going for the Marlies it is going to have a significantly lower level of competition than it is normally at (because of the number of players who opted not to come over from europe, the number of players from NA who opted to go over to Europe, and the number of players on taxi squads) so it will be used to get them some games in, but there is not going to be much development going for players like Sandin or Liljegren (although it should be great for players like Brazeau).

 

[Rants Mulliniks]

I am looking at D drafted in the first two rounds who became top-4 D. Then I look at the median, so while there are some high draft picks, we are generally talking about players drafted in the late first round. Liljegren was drafted 17th and Sandin 29.

But let's not forget that these are two players considered t0 be draft steals by most of this message board: Liljegren was ranked as high as #2 and only fell because of mono. Sandin was drafted due to Dubas' amazing recognition of talent that other GMs just don't have, aided by a scouting department that has more money than any other.

Then on top of that they were drafted into the organization that most of the people on here think is better at development than any other, and certainly has more money and access to resources, and things like skating coaches etc, that other teams can't compete with, and unlike most drafted players who are sent back to junior, or go to college, or remain overseas, they got to be immersed in that most amazing development program, and were under complete control of that most amazing development program, from age 18.

So - if all that is correct then there is no reason that they can't compete with their actual peers. (which as I said, most D drafted in the first two rounds who become top-4 D don't play much in the AHL, which yes, Sandin and Liljegren were put there at 18, but that is not what I have been arguing against - I have been arguing against the belief that most of their peers play a couple years in the AHL, they just start a couple years later. No, not if you are maintaining a view that these are future top-4 guys. Yes, if you are talking about general draft picks from the first two rounds who mostly don't make it, or sputter out as bottom pairing/injury replacement guys. And the median age for D drafted in the first two rounds who become top-4 D actually becoming top-4 D in the NHL is slightly younger than Sandin is right now, while Sandin and Liljegren are not even close to being full-time D, let alone top-4 D, despite all of those organizational advantages that Sandin and Liljegren were supposed to have.)

So instead what we now have is everyone believing that they are still likely to become top-4s, and believing that they are ahead of the curve, but through only comparing them people who were drafted later than them, and who were not "draft steals" and who were not developed in the most amazing development program, and who generally did not become top-4 D.

The reality is if they are going to become top-4 Ds (unlikely at this point for either) they are behind the curve.

The reality is that they developed in a way that Dubas had previously said was harmful - and that was before the pandemic. And developed badly since the pandemic. Now people can say that because of the pandemic bad development doesn't count or couldn't be avoided. But I knew back in October that the AHL season was likely going to be in shambles and hard to get off the ground - especially in Ontario, and Dubas was considered to be a genius for mostly picking Euros because development in NA was going to be rough this year. So, this was not a case where Dubas couldn't have known that there were going to be problems. He simply decided that having Liljegren and Sandin available in case the rare situation arose where the team could use them as injury replacement was more valuable to his short-term interests than the player's long-term development interests.

You're creating some strawman arguments in there. I also think you are completely confounding your own argument by throwing so many variables into it. If you want to argue that not getting playing time right now is an issue, fine and possibly fair (though we all know the options are limited due to this little pandemic thing). Do we have any evidence to suggest they will develop better playing (or maybe not playing) elsewhere versus being with the team? It isn't like this situation has ever existed before. Arguing that what league they play in matters is not a strong argument as different rules apply to different players. Is Brannstrom playing for Ottawa evidence of better development or just playing for a terrible team not competing for anything? When much of your "evidence" consists of guys drafted higher and much of the rest of the evidence indicates they are on normal trajectory, the conclusions you are reaching are very questionable. May end up right but not much indicates reason to believe it.

 

[biotk]

Can only wait and see eh?

I just know for an absolute fact that if I told any of you 3 years ago that Dermott is going to make precisely zero progress developing in the NHL during his first 3 years in the league I'd have gotten called crazy. It's the same route that Sandin and Liljegren are going down.

Eventually the results are going to speak for themselves and I'll happy to be proven wrong.

I would have definitely called you crazy, and I know almost everyone else would have. And I will be happy to be proven wrong if it ends up the team has figured out a better way to develop top-4 and that way turns out to be the opposite of what every team knows to be the case, and the opposite of how Dubas said young players need to be developed. Of course, if just one turns out it is more likely that it is one of those rare cases where a player simply overcame their team's bad development (as happened for instance with Theodore, although that was only because he was traded, and the Ducks knew they were doing a poor job, but with Fowler and Lindolm both still young and ahead of him on the left, they knew he had no future with them).

 

[BoredBrandonPridham]

I understand that actually comparing players with equivalent players, or equivalent players for where you predict or hope a player is going to be is a complete mystery for people who know nothing about statistics - which you clearly know nothing.

Your idea of comparing players with equivalent players is comparing where they were drafted. Your idea of tracking their development path is counting how many games they played in the AHL.

Your ideas don't have any foundation in actual player development, and implying that your arguments make more sense for someone who "knows statistics" is actually hilarious.

 

[Dekes For Days]

Can only wait and see eh?

Yeah, it would be nice if people had some patience, instead of posting blatantly false and misleading statements to arbitrarily claim we've destroyed his development at age 20, based on literally nothing.

I just know for an absolute fact that if I told any of you 3 years ago that Dermott is going to make precisely zero progress developing in the NHL during his first 3 years in the league I'd have gotten called crazy.

I'm not really sure what you expected out of Dermott, especially with a major injury in the middle, but also, your only evidence that he has had "precisely zero progress developing in the NHL during his first 3 years in the league" is that he's playing less minutes on a better, deeper, and healthier defense after 10 games (in which they played 7D at times), which isn't really evidence at all. Especially when one considers that he was playing big minutes at the end of the previous year, and he played career-high minutes in the playoffs.

 

[Bomber0104]

As big an issue, no.

But still an issue. It would still be the case that they were brought into the NHL before they were ready to become permanent players - something that Dubas said the organization would never do for prospects their age because it is too harmful. It would still be the case the team didn't value their development enough to ensure they were playing in overseas in the fall because the threat of the AHL not playing was always there - and the reality is that if/when the AHL gets going for the Marlies it is going to have a significantly lower level of competition than it is normally at (because of the number of players who opted not to come over from europe, the number of players from NA who opted to go over to Europe, and the number of players on taxi squads) so it will be used to get them some games in, but there is not going to be much development going for players like Sandin or Liljegren (although it should be great for players like Brazeau).

This is an unusual year for hockey players across all levels.

Imagine being an undrafted prospect trying to make a name for yourself in the junior ranks. For a lot of guys, Covid is going to hurt their chances at a pro career. Sandin isn't the only one is this boat.

I don't think Sandin is ready for a full-time NHL role with a team with playoff aspirations (and I've said this prior to this sesason too), but at the same time hockey players only get better by playing hockey.

It's a tough spot organizationally but I still err on the side of sidelining him for the time being.

He'll get some games in before long.

 

[biotk]

You're creating some strawman arguments in there. I also think you are completely confounding your own argument by throwing so many variables into it. If you want to argue that not getting playing time right now is an issue, fine and possibly fair (though we all know the options are limited due to this little pandemic thing). Do we have any evidence to suggest they will develop better playing (or maybe not playing) elsewhere versus being with the team? It isn't like this situation has ever existed before. Arguing that what league they play in matters is not a strong argument as different rules apply to different players. Is Brannstrom playing for Ottawa evidence of better development or just playing for a terrible team? When much of your "evidence" consists of guys drafted higher and much of the rest of the evidence indicates they are on normal trajectory, the conclusions you are reaching are very questionable. May end up right but not much indicates reason to believe it.

20-year-old D not getting playing time is an issue. Going 11 months without playing is an issue. No, there has not been a double blinded study on it, but everyone knows that it is an issue, and the younger they are the worse the issue is.

Whether or not Brannstrom is playing or not for Ottawa makes no difference to my arguments, and I have never said that it does. He is unlikely to become a top-4 D, and I don't think that Ottawa is an organization that you should model your development on.

You are always either looking at players drafted higher or lower, unless you only look at players drafted in the exact same spot. If, despite Liljegren being drafted 17 OA and Sandin being drafted 29 OA, it is unfair to compare them with players drafted in the first two rounds, then all that indicates is that the Leafs' either suck at drafting, or they suck at development, or both. And, no, the numbers do not change much at all if you instead shift to look at D drafted say within 14 or 15 spots of them. The median age for D who become top-4 making it to the NHL full-time remains roughly the same, with it still being the case that a good chunk of those who are later either went to college, stayed overseas, or were big, physical D who generally take longer to develop - and they are still behind the curve.

It you want to argue that it is too confounding to be looking at D drafted in the first two rounds who become top-4, well that is the whole point of drafting D in the first two rounds. In later rounds you hope you get lucky, and the development timescale is different. In the first two rounds if you are not trying to draft and develop top-4 D and top-6 forwards then you are doing it wrong. So what matters is the evidence, in terms of development, for what works and what doesn't towards that goal.

 

[biotk]

Your idea of comparing players with equivalent players is comparing where they were drafted. Your idea of tracking their development path is counting how many games they played in the AHL.

Your ideas don't have any foundation in actual player development, and implying that your arguments make more sense for someone who "knows statistics" is actually hilarious.

My idea of tracking their development path is not by counting how many games they played in the AHL. I track when top-4 D get to the NHL both full-time and into the top-4. My refuting yet another bull-shit lie by you guys, the claim that comparable players to Sandin and Liljegren play a lot of games in the AHL, but just start later, is me simply refuting yet another bull-shit lie by you guys. Comparable players who become top-4 D rarely play a lot of AHL games. Comparable players who do not become top-4 D usually do.

Reality conforms with what is known about development, and was known by Dubas as well until he started to do the opposite.

 

[Machinae]

20-year-old D not getting playing time is an issue. Going 11 months without playing is an issue. No, there has not been a double blinded study on it, but everyone knows that it is an issue, and the younger they are the worse the issue is.

Whether or not Brannstrom is playing or not for Ottawa makes no difference to my arguments, and I have never said that it does. He is unlikely to become a top-4 D, and I don't think that Ottawa is an organization that you should model your development on.

You are always either looking at players drafted higher or lower, unless you only look at players drafted in the exact same spot. If, despite Liljegren being drafted 17 OA and Sandin being drafted 29 OA, it is unfair to compare them with players drafted in the first two rounds, then all that indicates is that the Leafs' either suck at drafting, or they suck at development, or both. And, no, the numbers do not change much at all if you instead shift to look at D drafted say within 14 or 15 spots of them. The median age for D who become top-4 making it to the NHL full-time remains roughly the same, with it still being the case that a good chunk of those who are later either went to college, stayed overseas, or were big, physical D who generally take longer to develop - and they are still behind the curve.

It you want to argue that it is too confounding to be looking at D drafted in the first two rounds who become top-4, well that is the whole point of drafting D in the first two rounds. In later rounds you hope you get lucky, and the development timescale is different. In the first two rounds if you are not trying to draft and develop top-4 D and top-6 forwards then you are doing it wrong. So what matters is the evidence, in terms of development, for what works and what doesn't towards that goal.

There is an entire generation of players not playing and not developing can you calm tf down. Dermotts played almost every game for years and he hasn't put it all together. Is it his fault or managements fault or maybe it's neither and he just isn't good enough right now. You look at players like video game statistics lol. You can learn things by being around the team, that's why they bring junior guys to camp or to the AHL after the junior season is done so they can watch and learn..

 

[biotk]

This is an unusual year for hockey players across all levels.

Imagine being an undrafted prospect trying to make a name for yourself in the junior ranks. For a lot of guys, Covid is going to hurt their chances at a pro career. Sandin isn't the only one is this boat.

I don't think Sandin is ready for a full-time NHL role with a team with playoff aspirations (and I've said this prior to this sesason too), but at the same time hockey players only get better by playing hockey.

It's a tough spot organizationally but I still err on the side of sidelining him for the time being.

He'll get some games in before long.

I agree that it sucks and will hurt the chances of a pro career for a lot of players. I was opposed to them playing him in the NHL last year, and I remain opposed unless and until the team will do it the right way. But there were options out there.

If he was, say, an Arizona prospect, I would say "Well what you expect? It's Arizona. They are an incompetent team that lacks resources." That shouldn't be the case with a top prospect on the Leafs.

 

[biotk]

There is an entire generation of players not playing and not developing can you calm tf down. Dermotts played almost every game for years and he hasn't put it all together. Is it his fault or managements fault or maybe it's neither and he just isn't good enough right now. You look at players like video game statistics lol. You can learn things by being around the team, that's why they bring junior guys to camp or to the AHL after the junior season is done so they can watch and learn..

There are other players not developing, so it doesn't matter that Toronto is doing a bad job.

I have covered Dermott multiple times so I am not going to repeat it again, and you look like someone who doesn't have a clue about development anyway, so there is no sense bothering with you.

 

[Rants Mulliniks]

For poops and giggles, most people would consider Anaheim to be top of the tops for developing d-men. Here's a look at them:

Schultz - NCAA NCAA NCAA NCAA AHL/NHL NHL
Gardiner - NCAA NCAA NCAA/AHL AHL/NHL AHL/NHL NHL
Vatanen - LIGA LIGA LIGA AHL/NHL AHL/NHL NHL
Fowler - NHL
Manson - NCAA NCAA NCAA/AHL AHL/NHL NHL
Lindholm - AHL NHL
Theodore - CHL/AHL CHL/AHL AHL/NHL AHL/NHL AHL/NHL NHL
Montour - NCAA/AHL AHL AHL/NHL NHL
Pettersson - SEL SEL SEL AHL/NHL NHL
Larsson - SEL SEL/AHL/NHL AHL NHL

 

[tmlfan98]

If this is the current gold standard then why haven't they gotten at least a 2nd look yet?

 

[Dekes For Days]

And, no, the numbers do not change much at all if you instead shift to look at D drafted say within 14 or 15 spots of them. The median age for D who become top-4 making it to the NHL full-time remains roughly the same

That is false. The median age for successful defensemen drafted within 15th overall and 45th overall making their NHL team full-time has been in their D+4 season. Sandin just started his D+3 season.

 

[BoredBrandonPridham]

My idea of tracking their development path is not by counting how many games they played in the AHL. I track when top-4 D get to the NHL both full-time and into the top-4. My refuting yet another bull-shit lie by you guys, the claim that comparable players to Sandin and Liljegren play a lot of games in the AHL, but just start later, is me simply refuting yet another bull-shit lie by you guys. Comparable players who become top-4 D rarely play a lot of AHL games. Comparable players who do not become top-4 D usually do.

Reality conforms with what is known about development, and was known by Dubas as well until he started to do the opposite.

Given you only track development of defencemen after they hit the NHL, it explains why you think all defencemen should just be thrown into the NHL to sink or swim. But instead, reality conforms with what is known about development, which is that the development path for many NHL defencemen is through developmental leagues such as the AHL.

 

[biotk]

Given you only track development of defencemen after they hit the NHL, it explains why you think all defencemen should just be thrown into the NHL to sink or swim. But instead, reality conforms with what is known about development, which is that the development path for many NHL defencemen is through developmental leagues such as the AHL.

You are ridiculous as usual. I don't think at all that D should thrown in the NHL to sink or swim - the exact opposite. Unlike the Dubas cult, I was opposed to Sandin playing in the NHL at all last year - because I support methods of development that actually work.

Here's the reality, once again- most D who were drafted in the first two rounds who become top-4 D are in the NHL full-time at a younger age than Sandin is now - simple reality. Most of them become top-4 very quickly after becoming full-time D. Sandin and Liljegren are not ahead of the curve - they are behind. Most of those also spend little, if any, time in the AHL.

Now being behind the curve wouldn't matter at all if they were being developed properly - but they are not.

Bring young D into the NHL ONLY when you are certain they will permanent D from that time on.
Do not shuffle young D up and down to the minors, or injury replacement.
Partner the young D with an appropriate partner to mentor them.
If they don't start in the top-4, ensure that a pathway will be made available for them to move up quickly.

The Leafs fail with all those because they are a bad organization at developing D.

That the Dubas cult thinks differently only further shows what clowns they are. And afterall, these are the same group who thought that sitting Dermott on an extremely sheltered third pairing for years was not only a surefire way to develop a top-4, but the best way to do so.

 

[IPS]

That is false. The median age for successful defensemen drafted within 15th overall and 45th overall making their NHL team full-time has been in their D+4 season. Sandin just started his D+3 season.

Did you calculate how many of them are actually transitioning into top-4 D?

Remember we're not interested in having these guys just be bottom pairing D.

 

[Dekes For Days]

Here's the reality, once again- most D who were drafted in the first two rounds who become top-4 D are in the NHL full-time at a younger age than Sandin is now - simple reality.

That is false, and you have skewed the data by including lottery picks. The median age for successful defensemen drafted within 15th overall and 45th overall making their NHL team full-time has been in their D+4 season. Sandin just started his D+3 season. Sandin is developing just fine.

Did you calculate how many of them are actually transitioning into top-4 D? Remember we're not interested in having these guys just be bottom pairing D.

As I said, that includes top 4 and top pairing defensemen. It's not like all of the good ones entered the NHL in their D+1 or D+2 and everybody else is bottom pairing. D+4 is probably the most stacked grouping.

 

[Rants Mulliniks]

You are ridiculous as usual. I don't think at all that D should thrown in the NHL to sink or swim - the exact opposite. Unlike the Dubas cult, I was opposed to Sandin playing in the NHL at all last year - because I support methods of development that actually work.

Here's the reality, once again- most D who were drafted in the first two rounds who become top-4 D are in the NHL full-time at a younger age than Sandin is now - simple reality. Most of them become top-4 very quickly after becoming full-time D. Sandin and Liljegren are not ahead of the curve - they are behind. Most of those also spend little, if any, time in the AHL.

Now being behind the curve wouldn't matter at all if they were being developed properly - but they are not.

Bring young D into the NHL ONLY when you are certain they will permanent D from that time on.
Do not shuffle young D up and down to the minors, or injury replacement.
Partner the young D with an appropriate partner to mentor them.
If they don't start in the top-4, ensure that a pathway will be made available for them to move up quickly.

The Leafs fail with all those because they are a bad organization at developing D.

That the Dubas cult thinks differently only further shows what clowns they are. And afterall, these are the same group who thought that sitting Dermott on an extremely sheltered third pairing for years was not only a surefire way to develop a top-4, but the best way to do so.

So you know more about developing D than Anaheim? Why are you here?

 

[biotk]

So you know more about developing D than Anaheim? Why are you here?

I wasn't going to bother with your post because you not understanding that the first two names you listed Schultz and Gardiner never signed with Anaheim and the team had zero to do with their development makes me think that you really don't understand much at all about development.

Anaheim has done a good job developing at times and a poor job developing at other times - especially more recently. As I have already said, Theodore was a D who they developed poorly - something everyone knew at the time - but they didn't really care as they knew that their was no future for him in their lineup as there was no way he was going to dislodge one of Fowler or Lindholm, both still young at the time, as the 2 top LHD. Theodore is a rare case when the player overcomes bad development, but that certainly would not have occurred if he stayed in Anaheim, and the poor development is why they didn't get much for him (and they had shopped him before trading him Vegas for draft considerations).

But they have done nothing like play a 19 year old D 28 games in the NHL and then bury them the next year - because rarely do you find organizations that stupid.

I wonder what Dubas has to say about that kind of thing:

"We don't want our players going up to the Leafs before they're ready, and we don't want them shuttling up and down. We want players to be called up to the Leafs when they're young and on the first two years of their entry-level contracts ONLY (his emphasis) when they prove that they can be a Leaf, all the time. We don't want players going up and then coming down. We saw last year with Percy and Carrick, they go up, and they come back down, and it really rattles the players' confidence. To make the team and get recalled, it gets your psyche out of order a little bit. And I think that's on us, it's not on the players. We have to be the ones making sure we're doing what's right by the players."

 

[Rants Mulliniks]

I wasn't going to bother with your post because you not understanding that the first two names you listed Schultz and Gardiner never signed with Anaheim and the team had zero to do with their development makes me think that you really don't understand much at all about development.

Anaheim has done a good job developing at times and a poor job developing at other times - especially more recently. As I have already said, Theodore was a D who they developed poorly - something everyone knew at the time - but they didn't really care as they knew that their was no future for him in their lineup as there was no way he was going to dislodge one of Fowler or Lindholm, both still young at the time, as the 2 top LHD. Theodore is a rare case when the player overcomes bad development, but that certainly would not have occurred if he stayed in Anaheim, and the poor development is why they didn't get much for him (and they had shopped him before trading him Vegas for draft considerations).

But they have done nothing like play a 19 year old D 28 games in the NHL and then bury them the next year - because rarely do you find organizations that stupid.

I wonder what Dubas has to say about that kind of thing:

"We don't want our players going up to the Leafs before they're ready, and we don't want them shuttling up and down. We want players to be called up to the Leafs when they're young and on the first two years of their entry-level contracts ONLY (his emphasis) when they prove that they can be a Leaf, all the time. We don't want players going up and then coming down. We saw last year with Percy and Carrick, they go up, and they come back down, and it really rattles the players' confidence. To make the team and get recalled, it gets your psyche out of order a little bit. And I think that's on us, it's not on the players. We have to be the ones making sure we're doing what's right by the players."

I'm aware players get moved (yet despite how much you'd like to move the fences, guess what - both would have still ended up at minimum D4 before their shot). You responded because you can't resist being snarky, as evidenced in several posts. Yet here you sit after several epitaphs still fancying better methodology than what's in front of you. Almost comical that the only variances were selected earlier in the draft. Eerie similarity to your first list, save the odd outlier. Patterns patterns everywhere.

To recap, the team considered the best at producing D.....10 d-men...most of whom qualify as top 4.....80% took to at least D4....most played time in the A, some fluctuating back and forth. The two exceptions? Picks from ahead of the range we are talking in. Sound similar to any other list you may have seen?

 

[Dekes For Days]

I wonder what Dubas has to say about that kind of thing:

"We don't want our players going up to the Leafs before they're ready, and we don't want them shuttling up and down. We want players to be called up to the Leafs when they're young and on the first two years of their entry-level contracts ONLY (his emphasis) when they prove that they can be a Leaf, all the time. We don't want players going up and then coming down. We saw last year with Percy and Carrick, they go up, and they come back down, and it really rattles the players' confidence. To make the team and get recalled, it gets your psyche out of order a little bit. And I think that's on us, it's not on the players. We have to be the ones making sure we're doing what's right by the players."

It's interesting how you simultaneously accuse Dubas of being horrible at development, for doing things that everybody else does and have been historically perfectly normal in the development of top-4 defensemen, but at the same time, hold a cherry-picked, incomplete portion of one answer of his from one interview (largely about the Orlando Solar Bears) from almost 6 years ago before he was GM, as the one and only gospel on development.

I'm not sure how you twisted his statement that basically amounts to the importance of patience, into a narrative about developmental incompetence because Sandin wasn't handed a spot on a competitive team out of camp. You create insanely specific and arbitrary rules, and accuse others of not understanding development, when the first thing anybody should know about development is that there is no one perfect way for all players in all situations, especially during a global pandemic that has delayed or cancelled countless leagues.

For the record, this was the question that was asked...

Don: The organization has talked a change in philosophy toward prospects, and not pushing them, letting them develop in their own time and then moving them up, talk about that and how that might affect the number of players that might be here in Orlando from the Toronto organization. I get the sense that you're looking to have more players than were here last year, down.

And if you'd read it, you'd know it's mainly in regards to the Orlando organization's inclusion in the development process. Actually, it's pretty hilarious because the main takeaways are about not rushing your prospects before they're ready, and not getting hung up on the league somebody is in or giving in to pressure to play somebody somewhere - instead just focusing on what's best for their development. In the previous question, he discusses how moving down a league and being patient has helped some of their players.

In the part you highlighted, he references Carrick and Percy, but that's because, unlike Sandin, they weren't remotely close to ready to be in the NHL and hadn't actually proven themselves worthy of a shot through their play in the AHL, but were pushed to the NHL anyway. This is not the same situation as Sandin. Sandin was not pinballed, and Sandin had proven himself to be worthy of a shot in the NHL. He was not ready at the beginning of the year, and was sent down. He then went on to play really well in the AHL, and won top defenseman at the WJC. He had earned another shot, and there was an opening caused by extensive injuries to the Leaf's defense, including a player who was most similar in style, position, and role.

Was Sandin good enough to play in that situation and get some experience? Yes, he earned his shot, and showed some good signs.

Was Sandin good enough to warrant handing him a spot out of camp, and limiting depth signings on a competitive team, especially when they needed so much defensive depth the year prior? No.

That doesn't mean that Sandin is bad, or failing, or being developed poorly. He's still really young, and we have great depth this year, with no injuries thus far. By the logic you are using, Sandin would be developing just fine if he didn't play in the NHL last year, which doesn't make sense to start with, but then if Toronto had all those injuries and didn't play Sandiin after great AHL play and WJC top defensemen, you'd be complaining about his development just the same. No matter what Toronto did, you would have used it to claim "bad development".

The development track Sandin is on is perfectly normal, even for high-quality NHL defensemen. Your claims are baseless.