The Purpose of Utica Comets

[I in the Eye]

Ideally you want Utica in the playoffs with your prospects driving the team. Unfortunately, management has done a poor job of supplying Utica with strong prospects or veterans. So, worst of both worlds really.

When the Canucks season ended, why wasn't Pettersson, Boeser, Hughes (and anyone else eligible) sent down to utica... to get more games playing together? It's good for utica (as a byproduct) but also good for Vancouver. The notion of "graduated" or "too good for AHL" is nonsense, IMO... and it gets in the way of team building.

 

[Hit the post]

I don’t often agree with @krutovsdonut but I think he’s right here – the answer for me is somewhere between 1 and 2.

As in, development should be the priority, but that doesn’t equal throwing out only prospects no matter how hapless they may be and letting them lose endlessly. That seems to defeat the purpose of development.

But they need to be given priority and the rope to make mistakes, too.

Didn't Rodin get tossed into the deep end of the pool when he first came over and his smaller frame got mangled playing in the AHL? (Yes it was a previous management regime that did this)

 

[Peter10]

I don’t often agree with @krutovsdonut but I think he’s right here – the answer for me is somewhere between 1 and 2.

As in, development should be the priority, but that doesn’t equal throwing out only prospects no matter how hapless they may be and letting them lose endlessly. That seems to defeat the purpose of development.

But they need to be given priority and the rope to make mistakes, too.

It is the same problem that is showing with the Canucks though. Players who have no long term future at all with the team get played until they are dying of exhaustion on the ice while actual prospects and young guys are limited to low minutes or even press box. While I agree that you shouldnt spoon fed ice time to young guys, it is also not helping if you play the likes of Granlund, Leivo, Eriksson, Pearson or whatever their comparables are at Utica in top 6 roles while they dont give a flying f***. You need to put prospects in positions to succeed, if you dont thats the first step in killing development. So far everyone that made it, did so despite of how it is done and not because of it. Pettersson and Boeser never went to Utica. Demko, Virtanen (sort of) and Gaudette did but never made the strides one may have expected. Right now it seems to me that Utica is rather hurting than helping.

 

[Peter10]

When the Canucks season ended, why wasn't Pettersson, Boeser, Hughes (and anyone else eligible) sent down to utica... to get more games playing together? It's good for utica (as a byproduct) but also good for Vancouver. The notion of "graduated" or "too good for AHL" is nonsense, IMO... and it gets in the way of team building.

I could be wrong but I think neither would have been available for it. They could have been papered down (which they werent) so they would have been available during the playoffs but dont think that was an option for the regular season.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Didn't Rodin get tossed into the deep end of the pool when he first came over and his smaller frame got mangled playing in the AHL? (Yes it was a previous management regime that did this)

i agree that the ahl can be a meat grinder for young physically underdeveloped prospects. there's something to be said for leaving skinny prospects overseas to develop. maybe even something to be said for sending some north american prospects overseas.

but in rodin's case it was always going to be an issue. sometimes you can't fix skinny.

 

[StrictlyCommercial]

i agree that the ahl can be a meat grinder for young physically underdeveloped prospects. there's something to be said for leaving skinny prospects overseas to develop. maybe even something to be said for sending some north american prospects overseas.

but in rodin's case it was always going to be an issue. sometimes you can't fix skinny.

Concussions and devastating knee injuries are not strictly caused by size. Luck or lack thereof, as sad as it is, is probably the biggest factor.

 

[Hit the post]

i agree that the ahl can be a meat grinder for young physically underdeveloped prospects. there's something to be said for leaving skinny prospects overseas to develop. maybe even something to be said for sending some north american prospects overseas.

but in rodin's case it was always going to be an issue. sometimes you can't fix skinny.

A shame really. Most would've given up on "the dream" a long time ago but here he was still trying 'one more time' to break into the league a couple seasons ago here. From what I read, he developed into a solid player (and Captain of his team) overseas before giving it another shot here.

 

[krutovsdonut]

A shame really. Most would've given up on "the dream" a long time ago but here he was still trying 'one more time' to break into the league a couple seasons ago here. From what I read, he developed into a solid player (and Captain of his team) overseas before giving it another shot here.

really liked ronin. i agree a shame he didn’t get a chance when hewas ready.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

I don’t often agree with @krutovsdonut but I think he’s right here – the answer for me is somewhere between 1 and 2.

As in, development should be the priority, but that doesn’t equal throwing out only prospects no matter how hapless they may be and letting them lose endlessly. That seems to defeat the purpose of development.

But they need to be given priority and the rope to make mistakes, too.

But from what Ive understood what took place in Utica this year was highly unusual.

2nd - 3rd rounders usually get a ton of leway and have to lose their spots on the top of the AHL affiliates depth charts. The opposite was true for most. Does not help that the team is mostly filled with ECHL level talent. When you dont play in the top6 you are playing with face punchers.

Palmu bolted and Im sure it was best for his developement. Dahlen took longer but bolted just the same. That is 2 of our top 10 prospects who basically decided best course of action was to not be there at all.

 

[F A N]

When the Canucks season ended, why wasn't Pettersson, Boeser, Hughes (and anyone else eligible) sent down to utica... to get more games playing together? It's good for utica (as a byproduct) but also good for Vancouver. The notion of "graduated" or "too good for AHL" is nonsense, IMO... and it gets in the way of team building.

Pettersson is an NHL all star. Boeser was one last year. They are also sure-fire bets to be invited to the World Hockey Championships, which they were. Expecting them to play for Utica is nonsense. As for Hughes, he wasn't eligible to be papered down in the first place.

 

[Jyrki21]

Didn't Rodin get tossed into the deep end of the pool when he first came over and his smaller frame got mangled playing in the AHL? (Yes it was a previous management regime that did this)

I don't know if there was really a "deep end" about it and I'm not sure his case really illustrates anything here... remember, he didn't actually come to the AHL until his d+3 year and played reasonably well while he was healthy, then got injured. I don't think it has too much to do with how much priority was placed on development (although in Chicago, the answer was quite famously "not much" anyway, particularly as they weren't Canuck property).

It is the same problem that is showing with the Canucks though. Players who have no long term future at all with the team get played until they are dying of exhaustion on the ice while actual prospects and young guys are limited to low minutes or even press box. While I agree that you shouldnt spoon fed ice time to young guys, it is also not helping if you play the likes of Granlund, Leivo, Eriksson, Pearson or whatever their comparables are at Utica in top 6 roles while they dont give a flying f***. You need to put prospects in positions to succeed, if you dont thats the first step in killing development. So far everyone that made it, did so despite of how it is done and not because of it. Pettersson and Boeser never went to Utica. Demko, Virtanen (sort of) and Gaudette did but never made the strides one may have expected. Right now it seems to me that Utica is rather hurting than helping.

I agree entirely – I don't like the way the Comets were handled this year either, and you're absolutely right that the Canucks have something of a weird parallel going on at the major league level. I'm just saying I don't think it's as simple as "it never matters if the AHL affiliate wins a single game". I think it likely does matter some, since players won't develop in a hopeless system with no guidance. It is probably advisable to mix up the prospects with AHL veterans and make sure the prospects do get a lot of opportunity, and it is really that – the short rope – which has been an issue in Utica this year.

That said, the prospects the Canucks had also, clearly, weren't knocking it out of the park in their opportunities, so part of this is just that they weren't surefire prospects to begin with. Maybe a cautionary tale there for those who like to declare the Canucks "big winners at the draft" as soon as it ends...

 

[sting101]

Obviously the most important thing is to develop prospects.

But it matters how you structure the development stream.

The organizational depth has to be 10 deep at centre 9 deep on the wings the defense 7 deep at each as well as 4 goalies with a 5th somewhere at arms length....Kalamazoo.

These depth charts have to be without accounting for players drafted outside the first couple of rounds that are first year pros. Notoriously jr to pro jumps for players are transitional and should be looked at as merely depth players in limited roles until proven otherwise. As we all know injuries will happen and opportunities will be abundant as things unwind. It would be nothing to jettison a 4th line depth player from a AHL team to make room for a Jasek or Gadjovich if they are playing well enough to play regularly.

The problem starts to be when you have players put into the structure that are not ready for roles, when not enough decent pro players are in place to help the rookies and when the top AHL players are not good enough to play NHL as spot fillers and help keep the AHL team competitive and produce with future potential top 6 players. Basically at that point the competitive balance is out the window and too many of the prospects shifts and games will be played in garbage time and without the puck....which will have an adverse effect on production and confidence.

The problem we have seen is the depth structure has been relatively poor, prospects have been either rushed or benched for stretches that are far too long and injuries have created further havoc. The fist 2 simply should never be a thing.

 

[I in the Eye]

Pettersson is an NHL all star. Boeser was one last year. They are also sure-fire bets to be invited to the World Hockey Championships, which they were. Expecting them to play for Utica is nonsense. As for Hughes, he wasn't eligible to be papered down in the first place.

Thanks for answering my question why weren't they... makes sense.

 

[vanuck]

Ideally the answer should be between 1 and 2 - I don't believe it has to be one or the other if you're structuring your team right. But there's no way it'll happen with our current management... they don't have a clue what going on with the farm.

When the Canucks season ended, why wasn't Pettersson, Boeser, Hughes (and anyone else eligible) sent down to utica... to get more games playing together? It's good for utica (as a byproduct) but also good for Vancouver. The notion of "graduated" or "too good for AHL" is nonsense, IMO... and it gets in the way of team building.

I'm pretty sure Dallas did this with Jamie Benn as well back in his rookie season.

 

[I in the Eye]

Ideally the answer should be between 1 and 2 - I don't believe it has to be one or the other if you're structuring your team right. But there's no way it'll happen with our current management... they don't have a clue what going on with the farm.



I'm pretty sure Dallas did this with Jamie Benn as well back in his rookie season.

Ya, here's what I thought the rules are:

• 18 & 19 year old skaters are exempt from waivers for five & four seasons respectively unless they have played in 11 NHL games.
• If an 18 or 19 year old skater has played in 11 NHL games, they are exempt from waivers for three seasons.
• A 20 year old skater who has played 1 professional game (AHL, NHL whatever), is exempt from waivers for three seasons. Once a player aged 18-20 plays a total of 160 NHL games, they immediately become eligible for waivers.
• A Player 25 years old or older who plays in one or more Professional Games in any season shall be exempt from Regular Waivers for the remainder of that season

I'm not sure of the rule that would prevent a Hughes or a Guadette from going down. Pettersson and Boeser makes sense to me because of world hockey championships.

 

[Icebreakers]

It's obviously somewhere in the middle. You can't ice gadjovich Lind dahlen (before trade) 20 minutes a game just because you want to develop them because Utica will win like 3 games and no one will buy tickets to the game.

 

[BeardyCanuck03]

Ya, here's what I thought the rules are:

• 18 & 19 year old skaters are exempt from waivers for five & four seasons respectively unless they have played in 11 NHL games.
• If an 18 or 19 year old skater has played in 11 NHL games, they are exempt from waivers for three seasons.
• A 20 year old skater who has played 1 professional game (AHL, NHL whatever), is exempt from waivers for three seasons. Once a player aged 18-20 plays a total of 160 NHL games, they immediately become eligible for waivers.
• A Player 25 years old or older who plays in one or more Professional Games in any season shall be exempt from Regular Waivers for the remainder of that season

I'm not sure of the rule that would prevent a Hughes or a Guadette from going down. Pettersson and Boeser makes sense to me because of world hockey championships.

In order for a player under contract (non sliding) to be eligible to play in the AHL playoffs they need to be on the Clear day roster which is either the NHL Trade Deadline or the day after. Any player signing a contract to play in the NHL that season, after that is not eligible. This is why you see lots of lower end NCAA players sign ELCs starting the year after and signing ATOs to play the remaining part of the season in the AHL.

With that in mind, none or Boeser, Gaudette and Hughes were eligible when they signed their ELCs and played for the Canucks.

 

[vanuck]

Ya, here's what I thought the rules are:

• 18 & 19 year old skaters are exempt from waivers for five & four seasons respectively unless they have played in 11 NHL games.
• If an 18 or 19 year old skater has played in 11 NHL games, they are exempt from waivers for three seasons.
• A 20 year old skater who has played 1 professional game (AHL, NHL whatever), is exempt from waivers for three seasons. Once a player aged 18-20 plays a total of 160 NHL games, they immediately become eligible for waivers.
• A Player 25 years old or older who plays in one or more Professional Games in any season shall be exempt from Regular Waivers for the remainder of that season

I'm not sure of the rule that would prevent a Hughes or a Guadette from going down. Pettersson and Boeser makes sense to me because of world hockey championships.

If I'm not mistaken, Hughes would've had to sign an ATO in order to play for Utica but he wouldn't have eligible to play for Vancouver for the remainder of this season as they wouldn't be able to call him up. We all know this would never happen anyway because the idea of your 1st round pick joining the farm team from college is a completely alien concept to management.

Gaudette couldn't go back to Utica because he rather notoriously wasn't "papered down" by our beloved Jimbo... which, come to think of it, is something I'm surprised hasn't been brought up by the media here AFAIK.

 

[I in the Eye]

Noted. Thoughts have been updated. Thanks all.

 

[jigsaw99]

You need experienced / skilled veterans to help young players develop. If a player is stuck with guys that can't defend and can't make passes, they won't be able to develop their skills. Playing only prospects would be an unmitigated disaster. You need to build your AHL team around your prospects.

Have a highly touted scoring winger prospect? Get a vet playmaking center.

Have an offensive D prospect? Get a steady vet to play with them.

Have no offensive D prospects? Get an offensive D vet so your powerplay doesn't suck.

The problem Utica has is that our management does not comprehend that you need to target vets that complement your top prospects. Forcing ice time for bad players just drags down everyone.

Except the Comets didn't get experienced / skilled veterans. They got a bunch of plugs instead to play.

 

[Shareefruck]

I feel like there's a bit of a false dichotomy being presented here. In most cases, the two should go hand-in-hand.

If giving a prospect a certain amount of ice-time legitimately hurts the team's chances long term moving forward, then I wouldn't expect being played in that manner to help their development rather than harm it anyways. The inverse of that is true as well.

That doesn't hold up 100% of the time, but I don't think there's as much of a conflict as what's been implied, personally. Problems only really arise when coaches mis-identify what would help and harm their club or are simply stuck in their old ways. For example, when Hutton was being benched because veterans were trusted more, the coach was actually hurting his own team's chances while also hurting Hutton's development.

If a minor league team is properly run, you would want it to concentrate on being competitive, be open to developing young players while also refusing to play favorites for the good of the club. That kind of environment should be ideal for development, IMO (even if a prospect is so poor that they would end up being justifiably benched in that environment), not one where you have to choose one at the expense of the other.

 

[mikel83]

The mandate has to be develop players at all cost regardless if they go 0-72. A losing culture would not have a chance to develop if a proper structure is in place.

IMO, symmetry of systems between the NHL team and its AHL affiliate has to be put in place. Travis Green (or whoever the NHL head coach is) needs to outline what he expects (at minimum) of his players in order for them to play in the NHL. It is then the job of GM Ryan Johnson and coach Trent Cull to make sure those players understand what is expected of them to play for the big club. Surely the AHL prospect that comes up to the NHL will make mistakes but it should be because the speed and pace of the NHL, not because it is a mistake that the player has never rectified while developing in the AHL.

There will be a learning curve and adjustments for these prospects in the AHL but they should be given an extended leash to make these mistakes. Its better to have them make these mistakes in the AHL and not the NHL. The AHL coach will then help that prospect correct the deficiencies in their game while helping them polish their strengths. There is a reason these prospects were drafted and signed to entry level deals by an NHL team. The idea that an AHL team can go 0-72 because it was only playing the NHL teams prospects is unrealistic because if they are being developed properly and playing the team systems as it was outlined, they should be able to win games (not alot at first). Also, there will be prospects at various levels of development so there will never be an AHL team of just 19 and 20 year olds. You will have 21-22 year olds who are close to making the NHL who should be able to help their younger teammates get better. If there is a Canucks property on the AHL team that doesn't really have a future with the big club but is continually lighting the AHL up (ex Reid Boucher), dump them because they would be a road block to a younger player (ex Kole Lind) who has the offensive potential to develop into that player the Canucks would call up. If there is a prospect that continually makes the same mistakes at the AHL level then that prospect does deserve to have their ice time limited or be a healthy scratch.

 

[Grub]

Remember the Manitoba Moose?

Now that was a beneficial partnership, and they were quite competitive most nights.

Many of the 2011 core came up from the Moose (Hansen, Bieksa, Edler, Burrows, Kesler, Raymond)

I want the Utica Comets to be what Manitoba was.

 

[RandV]

It's obviously somewhere in the middle. You can't ice gadjovich Lind dahlen (before trade) 20 minutes a game just because you want to develop them because Utica will win like 3 games and no one will buy tickets to the game.

I don't think anyone would suggest something like that, you don't 'develop' kids playing above their level by repeatedly throwing them on the ice together to get slaughtered. Rather if you're focusing on 100% development you take a kid like Lind or Dahlen and play them 20 minutes a night with top line AHL players, even if they drag the line down and are a detriment to the team. It's not a coincidence that teams with a pair of star centers always appear to be better at 'developing' good wingers.

 

[mikel83]

It's obviously somewhere in the middle. You can't ice gadjovich Lind dahlen (before trade) 20 minutes a game just because you want to develop them because Utica will win like 3 games and no one will buy tickets to the game.

Why are people so concerned about no one showing up to buy tickets for an AHL team? The Canucks shouldn't care less if anyone shows up to their AHL team's games because all that matters is that propsects clean up their bad habits and build up their strengths. They shouldn't sign AHL veterans to help them win games but rather they should develop the prospects to get better then the wins will come. Development comes first then winning at the AHL should be considered gravy. I don't understand why is 'pain' allowed for an NHL team and not for an AHL team.