View Single Post
Old
11-01-2012, 04:00 PM
  #984
Seph
Registered User
 
Seph's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Oregon
Country: South Korea
Posts: 15,629
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Seph
Quote:
Originally Posted by lukasfindl View Post
what type of waivers would we have to place poulin on in order to bring him up to the big club? never heard of entry waivers...
If he's not in the NHL in two years, he would need to clear waivers to be assigned to the AHL.

Quote:
Originally Posted by redbull View Post
there are a lot of goalies that have potential, that don't develop the way many had hoped, and are exposed (sometimes lost) to waivers. It's the nature of the position and how long it takes to learn it. It's similar on defense - Wishart being a NYI example who was on waivers last year.

Justin Pogge was a star for Team Canada in junior but struggled with the Leafs/Marlies, eventually traded and doesn't look like he's going to be a pro. There are many more examples.

I'm not worried about losing a player who doesn't prove to be "good enough" - it's the nature of the business. Trying to develop players and determining when to hold'em and when to fold'em is what the GM is accountable for. It's impossible to "get it right" all the time. Sometimes it lands us Schremp, Grabner and sometimes we'll lose out.

On Poulin, he's got time, he's been hurt as well, he's looked really good for the most part, has looked equally bad at others.

My only issue with the way the NYI handle their goalies is that they don't get enough playing time. Nilsson, Koskinen and Poulin should all be starting goal-tenders somewhere. Too often, over the past couple of years, the NYI were trying to squeeze six goalies on two rosters - NYI/BP.
If the kid shows he doesn't have what it takes to stick in the NHL and we lose him to waivers, that doesn't really bother me. It happens. That said, the notion of him being 100% ready and great, but we lose him to waivers rather than giving him a chance to show what he can do in the NHL? Well, that would kind of suck.

I get the idea of taking time with players and not rushing them, but at the same, don't agree that there's this unlimited timeframe for figuring out if a kid has what it takes to make it in the NHL, especially when kids get into the 22-23 age range and are running out of waiver options. At some point, if you remain high on a kid, you need to give him a chance to prove whether or not he's NHL ready. If he's not and we lose him, no biggie. If we sour on him and we lose him, again, no biggie. But losing him to waivers because we just wanted to wait longer before giving him a chance? To me, that's mismanagement.

Seph is offline