That was some amazing mental gymnastics to complain about something that doesn’t warrant it.
Olofsson was sent down to grow and round out his game. Its already happened. He is now a key all situations cog for the Amerks. The next step is to see what he can do in the AHL playoffs. I’d argue this is the best pro season of his career with more hopefully to come in the playoffs.
I fail to see how a small sample of games with us (6 at most) is going to undo or reverse all the growth/development ingrained in him over 64gms in the AHL.
I’m no fan of Housley and how he handles young guys. He messed up Guhle last year and Pilut this year after their stints with us. They weren’t the same after getting sent back. But those two were here for MUCH longer tours of duty up than a possible 6 games for Olofsson. Plus they played a position I’m sure Phil got involved with more.
I think Olofsson came up as a swap for Tage not an injury so I may be wrong on injuries being why he came up. Nylander came up due to injuries and Jack’s suspension.
Sigh, what you call mental gymnastics, I call basic logic.
Before you repeat yourself again about how this year is so much superior to last year for him, I’m happy he has played well. But if you think about it honestly you would have to agree that there is no guarantee or really any historical reference that tells us Olofsson would definitely only play well if given a whole year in the ahl. He might have grown into the nhl just like Dahlin and developed his game just fine. And at his age, we quite literally talking about his athletic prime and history tells us that most non-elite nhler are basically a shadow of themselves by 30. So using this whole year for what maybe or maybe not was the best development path is hardly for sure the right choice. What if he was good enough to be a 20 goal guy this year with defense like Skinner? Am I really going to cry that he might have missed out on a touch of ahl polish? This whole development plan sounds far more appropriate for Mitts and Tage.
But that’s not the discussion we are having. It’s about whether they were consistent with assumed “plan” for Olofsson.
And playing the whole season, but if there is a random injury we will call him up for the last 5 games, is not a logical plan. It’s not that Phil will destroy him. And that was not the argument. The argument is simply why bother if the focus is on building him in the minors? Particularly as they get ready for the playoffs.
The obvious answer to that is they want to reward him. I think that is reasonable. But it doesn’t jive with the plan. It also requires everyone to believe that he would have been damaged in his development by getting 5 games two months ago, when both the team could have used help and he also deserved a reward because he was a team leader and quite acclimated to North America.
I get it, you’re looking for bright spots for Botts. And I know these types of distinctions can be tricky. But just waiting for random injuries to happen, who knows when, is not a plan.
Think about it this way, if some injuries had happened in early December, let’s say Tage and Sobotka, under this “plan” would Olofsson have been called up? He was playing great and would deserve it. Would that have disrupted his development? If he performed well, do you think they would send him back down?
That’s my point. If injuries are all that decide when someone gets brought up, it’s not a plan, it’s crisis management.
Now as I said before, this is all speculation, by you for saying the plan was for him to stay down all year, by me for what they would do if injuries had happened early.
But this whole conversation started with me saying him getting called up at this point, feels unplanned. And that isn’t really arguable, if the response is just oh well injuries happened. Leaving when a player comes up to, ehh if/when an injury happens is not a precise plan. It’s happenstance.
