So you're suggesting we carry only one extra forward when there are twice as many forward spots as defense slots? The second that two of our forwards go down with injuries, which is guaranteed to happen at some point, we're going to have to get rid of one of our 8 defensemen anyways to call up a forward. Doing it now saves the owner's some money.
Yes I am 100% in favor of keeping 8 NHL level d-men on the NHL roster all season. From listening to Gillis all summer I was convinced that was the direction he was going to go. I guess money got in the way of that.
You only need 1 extra forward. Like others have said we have plenty of forwards to call-up without the risk of losing them on waivers. If we have two forwards go down with injuries odds are one will be 10 games or longer. If it's a game or two I'd rather just dress 7 d-men and save the more valuable asset.
Everyone is just assuming this new d-core will stay healthy. i hope they're right but we could be in trouble if we get some fluke injuries.
Last edited by NugentHopkinsfan: 10-02-2010 at 09:58 PM.
So if Torres and Raymond go down with an injury and misses a few games, who do you call up and who would you send down?
You play with 11 for a few games. Teams with enforcers basically do it all the time. You up the minutes of guys like Hansen and Malhotra.
This is assuming no d-man ever goes on LTIR right? because if one does we can use his spot to call-up a forward.
IMO you don't lose depth on D because you are worried that two forwards MAY happen to get minor injuries that won't be LTIR and they won't be able to play for a few games. In our case it's much safer to assume we'll have multiple injuries on D since that's been the trend since the lockout.
Faith in what? I just don't see how we'll have any extra d-men with value and based on the history of hockey young goalies don't get traded for anything of value.
The guys on our team who can bring back a really good prospect or young NHL C are guys we need.
Also, how's Perrault doing? still building him up?
Perrault? He retired. Good career in Buffalo. You been drinking?
You seem to have your knickers in a knot about things that will take care of themselves. Suggest you relax a bit and you will see there are plenty of ways real NHL GMs can build a hockey team. Ways even you cannot dream up on your NHL '11 game set. Really. For true.
That's not the point. If we carry two extra d-men and one extra forward, and two of our forwards go down with a minor injury at the same time, we'll end up losing that 2nd extra defenseman anyways. Our 12 forward spots are just as likely to stay healthy as our 6 defensemen spots, so since there are twice as many forward slots as defensemen slots, it makes absolute sense to carry twice as many extra forwards than defensemen.
that's not really true. partially by the style of play we employ now, and partially just by the nature of the position...our d-men are the ones most likely to end up getting plastered, and just generally banged up as the season goes on.
i certainly would love to have us carry a pair of extra forwards and rotate them through to keep that lineup hungry, determined, and healthy. but we've seen it often...our defence gets beat up badly over the course of a season, and the waiver issue may not be 'your point', but it's a key consideration in these decisions. there are also other issues like the Salo LTIR mess that need to be taken into consideration.
in terms of the math and probability, i'm not a mathematician, but even i understand that even a bottom-pairing d-man playing fairly significant minutes is more likely to get injured than a forward playing 4 minutes a night on the 4th line. and there are certainly forwards playing with 'minor' injuries from night to night. sure, they're less effective...but instead of costing us goals as would playing an injured d-man, it just ends up with us not scoring as many goals, etc.
it's a tough situation, and in an ideal world we'd be able to carry a 24 man active roster, but we can't...and those are the rules that all of the other teams abide by. so Gillils has to work within that. and honestly, our track record clearly shows that we're going to need more d-men.
but who knows. with SOB waived, it's hard to say if Gillis thinks we'll be ok with 7 d-men, or if this is just a move to create a space for Salo to join the roster before assignment to LTIR.
i guess we'll find out soon enough. and if 2 forwards can't play at the same time...either they'll end up on LTIR, or we'll end up with a short-term fix like the unfortunate 'Bieksa as a forward' experiments for a few games. IMO, Bieksa being awful as a forward on the 4th line for a a few minutes a night is still better than having a raw kid like Oberg/Connauton/Tanev playing NHL minutes of defence...where either we pile on additional strain and extra minutes to our other d-men, or we have a young kid being exploited for 10+ minutes a night.
So guys, why hasn't Hodgson been sent down? With the roster pretty much set, he doesn't seem to have a place on it barring Schaefer sh*tting the bed. I don't understand why AV is keeping him around.
He's a prized prospect, where is the harm in letting him practice and learn as long as possible with the big club?
Where's the harm in treating him like a regular prospect who didn't make the team?
Where's the harm in sending him down to get ready for the AHL regular season with the guys he's going to be playing with for the next while?
(unless it's a medical issue)
So guys, why hasn't Hodgson been sent down? With the roster pretty much set, he doesn't seem to have a place on it barring Schaefer sh*tting the bed. I don't understand why AV is keeping him around.
I'd imagine the reason for him being with the team this week (even in the capacity of 8th defenceman) is for him to learn the systems, so when he is eventually called up it's an easier transition.
CapGeek has Cody listed as a "non-roster" player along with everyone else who's been sent down. Not sure if that's an error on their part or if they know something we don't.
He's a prized prospect, where is the harm in letting him practice and learn as long as possible with the big club?
I don't want to sit and read through the entire thread to see if this has been asked already, but is there/could there be a concern that a full NHL season is a little too much too soon given his past back problems?
I don't want to sit and read through the entire thread to see if this has been asked already, but is there/could there be a concern that a full NHL season is a little too much too soon given his past back problems?
The back is reportedly 100% healed. Be it the NHL or the AHL, playing a full season is very much the plan for Cody. We have no idea what they're planning to do with him, but the smart money says that he'll be in the AHL.
Well, they waived Tamby. It could be that they're considering giving Hodgson a few games on the 4th line before Rypien is back to see how he performs. If they want to get under the cap they might send him to Manitoba before the season starts, but keep him in Van and immediately recall him on opening day.
Hard to say what the plan is at this point. Maybe they figure Hodgson getting some NHL experience is more beneficial than Tamby on there would have been.
Either way, keeping him around the big club makes sense to me. Every day he's working with the pro guys is a better development day than practicing in Manitoba, in my opinion.
)
