View Single Post
Old
12-04-2012, 12:08 PM
  #16
kirant
Kiprusoffarian
 
kirant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 289
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLAMESFAN View Post
Kirant, we have what we have. Yes, the # of games are small, but if we go back to last year it has to be concerning the amount of game action he has been able to get into. You want your stud goalie to get alot of games, not a couple a month.
Ideally, yes as long as the team he's on is aiding his development. At the same time, a coaches' job is to win games, so he'll try to win them instead of doing what may be best for an organization. Some teams (see: Sabres) basically make it a young man's team over attempting to win, sacrificing competitiveness in the process in order to ensure young players are getting ample play time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FLAMESFAN View Post
AS far as the contract issues: what's worse, him not playing so he can't get claimed when there is no hockey, or him not playing? I for one do not like how we are managing this asset.
It's an interesting question, no doubt. On that topic, I'd say that him not playing because of contract issues is a better situation to own than him not playing because he's not good enough.

But the point I was trying to make was different...that he could be benched because of this contract issue as opposed to being outplayed. This is a different explanation than you provided and one which punches a hole into the idea that he's benched because he's being beaten out by 2 AHL veterans, the notion people take exception to (some because, as you point out, they do have rose coloured glasses on, but some too because this is a, at least in my mind, legitimate reason).

With this in mind, you'd say that him not playing is a calculated gamble by the GMs and coaches so that he can be the backup if the season should resume.

kirant is offline   Reply With Quote