View Single Post
Old
12-04-2012, 12:20 PM
  #17
FLAMESFAN
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Antarctica
Posts: 2,462
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kirant View Post
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.


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.

Someone pointed out awhile ago that the PTO contract was for 25 games, with an option to sign for another 25. If that is infact the case, then there should be no worrying about saving games for him. The Heat are now 20 games into the season. If it is only for 25 games, why didn't they have him play in Europe? Why sign Brust at the same time (yes, I know he was Ward's goalie.....) when Irving & Taylor would have been a good 1-2 punch?

FLAMESFAN is offline   Reply With Quote