Your examples don't really apply. Your examples are not analogous. If any young player performs the same as any older player, I still prefer the younger because they're typically cheaper, at least have potential to improve, and have the possibility of staying longer. A better analogy would be if you had two cars that ran the same except one was 10 years older than the other. Sure, maybe *for now* they run the same. But I think you'd be wise to keep the newer car because chances are likely that it'll be in better condition from then on.Hirose should be argument A-Z for the spots in the NHL being there for the taking if you're a young player and that they shouldn't be granted because someone looks okay in a role.
You have to bring something that makes the team NEED you. If you're a fourth liner and you are un-noticeable... that means you played well, but it's also not a strong argument for keeping you up or giving you more of a shot.
Your examples don't really apply. Your examples are not analogous. If any young player performs the same as any older player, I still prefer the younger because they're typically cheaper, at least have potential to improve, and have the possibility of staying longer. A better analogy would be if you had two cars that ran the same except one was 10 years older than the other. Sure, maybe *for now* they run the same. But I think you'd be wise to keep the newer car because chances are likely that it'll be in better condition from then on.
Your examples are all of someone doing something far beyond the norm. Of course that should mean a younger player replacing an older player. But how about when a younger player is just "even" with an older one?
Then the older one keeps the spot. Just like if you had a car loan or a mortgage, you would have to figure in the cost of getting rid of the old vehicle for the new one. Say you wanted to replace Abdelkader with Dominic Turgeon. You could either buy out Abby and have a portion of his cap hit for 8 years, you could try to bury him in the minors (which would rub the other players on the team the wrong way) and still have 3.3M of his cap hit on your books and add Turgeon's deal... so you're still paying 4.25M essentially.
So what on Earth do I give a crap about where the money goes? Why do I care if it goes 3.35M to Abby and whatever to Turgeon or all to Abby?
If the young player is just even with an older one, there is nothing that is your impetus for the move. And since I'm not materially improving my situation (because if there is a young player who is just at equilibrium for Justin Abdelkader, he's not going to be a difference maker at the NHL level), why am I making this move? Why am I looking to reshuffle the deck chairs?
Basically what I'm saying is that if a kid is worthy of an NHL spot, they'll make you move a guy out of the way. If he's just meh, then why are you putting him in? So you can have a lower average age? You need to be making the league a meritocracy. I know that you're going to kind of think/say "well if you just keep all the vets, that's a country club". But I just don't see the benefit in gifting a Teemu Pulkkinen a roster spot because he happens to be in his early 20s. Hell, realistically, I'd want a scenario where Dylan Larkin feels the pressure to keep pushing. That Zadina or Veleno or Rasmussen get a spot when they're actively pushing a guy out of a roster slot than getting it because "they're young and good prospects and more likely to be here for longer". ****ing prove it.
****ing prove it.
I'm all for prospects proving themselves, but the rhetoric of "****ing prove it" is so old and frustrating because it's not, and has never been, a level playing field. Someone like Abdelkader is given a full year to "****ing prove it" that he still has anything in the tank that resembles productive qualities year over year over year and not a single time has he proven a damn thing. Yet the impetus still falls on the shoulders of the kids to "prove it". Meritocracy is great in theory, but what we have doesn't resemble anything close to meritocracy.
And no, Abby isn't being given a year to prove it. He's the incumbent. The other guy has to show that he's an upgrade or that you can remove Abby from the equation for little, or you're not actually a better team for having dealt him away. It's similar to how in economics that sometimes it doesn't make sense to get rid of a division even if that division is losing you money because it would cost more or be a more unfavorable situation to get rid of it.
This right here is the glaring flaw in your logic. The incumbent mindset is detrimental because it preaches continuity in spite of progress. Abdelkader is being granted a position why? It's not because of his play. You can't preach meritocracy and then hold people to different standards. That's ****ing stupid.
This team would have been noticeably better had they decided to waive Abby or make him a permanent healthy scratch and allowed someone else to step in and play. But they didn't. And why didn't they? You tell me a real reason as to why Abdelkader is allowed to lace up his skates on a nightly basis over other players in the organization capable of producing more. Abdelkader wouldn't be able to produce in Grand Rapids. The reason why Abdelkader is around is because the team refuses to eat a bad contract and will preach that he has some intangible value that the fans don't get to see off the ice. Bull****. You don't have to spend a single additional penny to put Abdelkader in the press box on a night in, night out basis. He's a sunk cost. I'm not advocating paying to get rid of him. I'm just not willing to hold back better hockey players and dress someone with zero ****ing value.
You want to preach a "prove it" culture, that applies to everyone across the board equally. I'm not here for prideful petting of egos, I'm not here for historical performance. Someone like Abdelkader has more value in not being on the ice than he does being on it, and I have to pay him either way.
Then the older one keeps the spot. Just like if you had a car loan or a mortgage, you would have to figure in the cost of getting rid of the old vehicle for the new one. Say you wanted to replace Abdelkader with Dominic Turgeon. You could either buy out Abby and have a portion of his cap hit for 8 years, you could try to bury him in the minors (which would rub the other players on the team the wrong way) and still have 3.3M of his cap hit on your books and add Turgeon's deal... so you're still paying 4.25M essentially.
So what on Earth do I give a crap about where the money goes? Why do I care if it goes 3.35M to Abby and whatever to Turgeon or all to Abby?
If the young player is just even with an older one, there is nothing that is your impetus for the move. And since I'm not materially improving my situation (because if there is a young player who is just at equilibrium for Justin Abdelkader, he's not going to be a difference maker at the NHL level), why am I making this move? Why am I looking to reshuffle the deck chairs?
Basically what I'm saying is that if a kid is worthy of an NHL spot, they'll make you move a guy out of the way. If he's just meh, then why are you putting him in? So you can have a lower average age? You need to be making the league a meritocracy. I know that you're going to kind of think/say "well if you just keep all the vets, that's a country club". But I just don't see the benefit in gifting a Teemu Pulkkinen a roster spot because he happens to be in his early 20s. Hell, realistically, I'd want a scenario where Dylan Larkin feels the pressure to keep pushing. That Zadina or Veleno or Rasmussen get a spot when they're actively pushing a guy out of a roster slot than getting it because "they're young and good prospects and more likely to be here for longer". ****ing prove it.
during the Prospect Tourney iirc they said it was a shot at the Leafs, having last won in '67. RE: your "factoid" post earlier, you can download the Wings Media guide. I did so ~3 years ago, really cool stuff.I heard he chose 67 to 1-up Lemuiex.
I remember that now, thanks.during the Prospect Tourney iirc they said it was a shot at the Leafs, having last won in '67. RE: your "factoid" post earlier, you can download the Wings Media guide. I did so ~3 years ago, really cool stuff.
I want a guy to get a spot when he can play.
And I want him to have a spot which helps him thrive.
So it's not one way or the other. It's a little of both.
Players have to earn their jobs. But teams also have to make room to give them the opportunity and role they need to grow.
As for Abdelkader - he has ZERO used to this team except on the penalty kill.
He was one of the worst forwards in the NHL last year. Period.
Savage. I love it!!!during the Prospect Tourney iirc they said it was a shot at the Leafs, having last won in '67. RE: your "factoid" post earlier, you can download the Wings Media guide. I did so ~3 years ago, really cool stuff.
Have to point out that for the first ~50 games of the season, Gator was getting 16 minutes a night, 5th most among forwards. From Feb 1st on that number fell to around 13:44 toi/g. Hirose and Zadina both averaged over 15 minutes a night in that span, and we saw bumps to the ice times for AA, Bertuzzi, and Mantha.
I think TSweeney is pretty on point with this. None of us are fans of Gator's contract, or his play lately. He was legitimately awful...but so have arguably the bulk of the Wings, and there just haven't been guys forcing Gator down the lineup. The second half of last year, we finally saw a bit of that with some guys stepping up and some others stepping in. Hopefully, we see it continue up front and start to happen on the blueline with Hronek, Cholo, etc.
I don't think Hirose has played with Abby yet. IIRC, Abby was on IR before Hirose signed, Hirose started on a line with Vanek and Nielsen, then got bumped up to AA's line playing with LGD then Helm. Blash didn't really have a choice but to give the top 3 lines lots of TOI because they were playing Witter as 7D, and double shifting AA and Larkin on the 4th line.Are you suggesting that Abdelkader's icetime decreased because Blashill was rewarding AA or Mantha or Bert for their fine play?
I think that's completely false, Winger98.
They got more time because the Wings traded Nyquist and because several Red Wings forwards were shutdown. Including Abdelkader, if memory serves.
Abdelkader... my god. He had a stretch last year....
40 games 0 goals. 8 assists. -12
Coach still played him over 15:20 a night in his last five games. Woof.
The only thing preventing these kids from stepping up earlier is Blashill.
With Hakstoll gone, he's got to be the worst coach in the NHL.
That's an incredible factoid(about 67 never being worn)
They got more time because the Wings traded Nyquist and because several Red Wings forwards were shutdown. Including Abdelkader, if memory serves.
Abdelkader... my god. He had a stretch last year....
40 games 0 goals. 8 assists. -12
Coach still played him over 15:20 a night in his last five games. Woof.
The only thing preventing these kids from stepping up earlier is Blashill.
With Hakstoll gone, he's got to be the worst coach in the NHL.