HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Boston Bruins
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

2010-11 Boston Bruins Prospect Thread I

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-11-2011, 11:46 AM
  #852
patty59
***************
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Lethbridge, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,686
vCash: 500
How many 18-19 year old kids from NCAA leave their teams to go play in the AHL?

My bet, would be that more kids leave the NCAA to play in the CHL after being drafted than go to the AHL.

patty59 is offline  
Old
04-11-2011, 11:57 AM
  #853
Saxon Eric
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Mendon/Greenfield NH
Country: United States
Posts: 3,112
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Saxon Eric
Quote:
Originally Posted by patty59 View Post
How many 18-19 year old kids from NCAA leave their teams to go play in the AHL? maybe 5-6 per year?

My bet, would be that more kids leave the NCAA to play in the CHL after being drafted than go to the AHL.
True but why is that ok and not the CHL to AHL

Saxon Eric is offline  
Old
04-11-2011, 12:10 PM
  #854
McKuato
Registered User
 
McKuato's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Lowell, Ma
Country: United States
Posts: 2,031
vCash: 500
Knight and Spooner 1st impressions?

Was wondering if anyone had a chance to see these guys playing in Providence and what they thought

McKuato is offline  
Old
04-11-2011, 12:19 PM
  #855
panny2727
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 850
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1stRoundandOut View Post
Was wondering if anyone had a chance to see these guys playing in Providence and what they thought
I was impressed watching spooner play this past fall on TV. I would be curious if his confidence is flying high enough to give him the go over ryder and Seguin. With his potential and speed the kid could deliver a few big goals for the B's in the playoffs. never will happen though

panny2727 is offline  
Old
04-11-2011, 12:51 PM
  #856
weaponomega
Registered User
 
weaponomega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,559
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saxon Eric View Post
[/B]

And the better competition is in the AHL
Then what happens to the 15, 16 and 17 year olds playing in the CHL? Their development is hurt because they aren't playing against the best competition. Ultimately removing all the top 18, 19 year olds from the CHL has a trickle down effect where in the end the talent being drafted into the NHL would not be as good if the 18 and 19 year old players were in the CHL.

weaponomega is offline  
Old
04-11-2011, 12:57 PM
  #857
WreckItRask
Registered User
 
WreckItRask's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Minnesota
Country: United States
Posts: 7,080
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thegodfather View Post
Of course you don't care that the CHL is big business in Canada, you live in the States, if all the Jr teams were based in the States I'd guess your views would be different.

You do realize it's called Jr Hockey for a reason correct ? They are still kids and you want to stick them in the AHL with young men

Most of these kids still attend school but I guess it's okay for them to skip it because they are playing in the AHL.

In closing watch your comments about Canada and the members from here disagreeing with you. I have a short fuse when it comes to people bashing a nation and it's people.

It goes both ways..
The problem with this entire debate both ways (ie. Allowing kids to leave the CHL and play in the AHL) is that both sides are discussing it in a vacuum and in completely black and white terms.

-The CHL guys are making the case that if the rule wasn't in place, then every drafted kid would sign with his NHL club and move on to the AHL right away. This would, no doubt, hurt the level of play in the CHL significantly...if there was even a modicum of chance that this would happen.
-The NCAA guys are making the case that the rule is stupid because it's fueled by greed, and doesn't allow NHL clubs to develop their drafted talent as they see fit. Players should be able to choose whatever they want to do after they're drafted.

But the reality is that both sides are right, and both sides are wrong. The NHL does, in fact, need the CHL to stay strong so that it continues to churn out high end guys. But in a perfect world, each NHL club would be allowed to place one or two players that would normally be considered "NHL or bust" in the AHL as they see fit. I think this sort of arrangement would only be available for guys two years after their drafted (ie. The Bruins wouldn't have been able to exercise this on Seguin, Hall on EDM, etc.), and the number would be limited to make sure the quality of talent remains high in the league.

If you ask me, the spirit of the rule makes sense, but there does need to be some tweaking. NHL clubs should be able to have some flexibility with their own prospects that they view to be "ready" to move on to the next level.

WreckItRask is offline  
Old
04-11-2011, 01:19 PM
  #858
Saxon Eric
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Mendon/Greenfield NH
Country: United States
Posts: 3,112
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Saxon Eric
Quote:
Originally Posted by weaponomega View Post
Then what happens to the 15, 16 and 17 year olds playing in the CHL? Their development is hurt because they aren't playing against the best competition. Ultimately removing all the top 18, 19 year olds from the CHL has a trickle down effect where in the end the talent being drafted into the NHL would not be as good if the 18 and 19 year old players were in the CHL.
Fair point, however why do they let in 15 year olds? are the Miget leagues crying about the CHL stealing their players, to me its a double standard, its OK to to take away a NCAA player and its ok to have a 15 year old play major junior but its not OK if the player is 19 (and wants to leave) because it will somehow kill off the CHL?. You are holding these kids hostage by denying them the right of choice over saving a monopoly

Saxon Eric is offline  
Old
04-11-2011, 01:29 PM
  #859
WreckItRask
Registered User
 
WreckItRask's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Minnesota
Country: United States
Posts: 7,080
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saxon Eric View Post
Fair point, however why do they let in 15 year olds? are the Miget leagues crying about the CHL stealing their players, to me its a double standard, its OK to to take away a NCAA player and its ok to have a 15 year old play major junior but its not OK if the player is 19 (and wants to leave) because it will somehow kill off the CHL?. You are holding these kids hostage by denying them the right of choice over saving a monopoly
It's a good point. The OHL has altered their own rules about minimum age limits to allow "exceptional players" to be draft eligible a year earlier. Doesn't it seem a bit hypocritical? I still believe that the NHL should reserve the right to handle their own "exceptional" players as they see fit after they play one post-draft year back in the CHL. Before that, it's NHL roster or CHL only, but making kids return for a second post-draft year when they're clearly ready to play in the AHL is allowing greed to get in the way of what's best for certain kid's development.

http://www.tsn.ca/draftcentre/story/?id=360230

Quote:
"The process established for the exceptional player is an extensive evaluation of the player in all aspects of life," said OHF Executive Director Phillip McKee. "Aaron should be very proud, just as the OHF is of him, for achieving the exceptional player status."

WreckItRask is offline  
Old
04-11-2011, 01:42 PM
  #860
patty59
***************
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Lethbridge, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,686
vCash: 500
It would also have the potential to hurt teams in terms of contract status of these players.

patty59 is offline  
Old
04-11-2011, 01:47 PM
  #861
KnightofBoston
MVP
 
KnightofBoston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Amherst, Ma
Country: United States
Posts: 12,519
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1stRoundandOut View Post
Was wondering if anyone had a chance to see these guys playing in Providence and what they thought
I saw them on saturday versus springfield, really nothing bad to say about either of them, their line with caron was the best in the game, completely dominant on the puck. Knight threw big checks and was a net hound, crashing into it and knocking it off at one point. Spooner always knew where to be, has really great hands and can find the open man pretty easily rushing up the ice. They both have a shot to make the team out of camp, but management wise they probably won't. I could see Knight making it sooner than Spooner due to his size and toughness and simplified game.

KnightofBoston is offline  
Old
04-11-2011, 02:03 PM
  #862
NinthSpoke06
Registered User
 
NinthSpoke06's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Chestnut Hill
Country: United States
Posts: 9,569
vCash: 50
Okay I will reply to this in steps.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thegodfather View Post
Of course you don't care that the CHL is big business in Canada, you live in the States, if all the Jr teams were based in the States I'd guess your views would be different.
Hardly the case. Of course the NCAA isn't as big of a business as the CHL but it is the same in principle and I am a huge NCAA fan. Of course I want my team (Boston College's) top players to stay for the 4 years allowed, but I think it is great that a guy can leave if he feels he needs to take the next step to make a pro career.

For example, Cam Atkinson was a Junior in his 3rd year here at BC. But he had put up back to back 50 point seasons with 30 goals each year and was a Hobey Baker candidate both years and he won a National Championship with the squad last year. He had 1 year of eligibility, but he and pretty much everyone in the NCAA knew it was best for him to try to learn the pro game. He is one of the smaller players out there, so it was vital for him to learn how to play against men if he wants any chance of succeeding the NHL. So he left to join the Blue Jackets AHL team. Chris Kreider is on the verge of doing the opposite, coming back to BC rather than going to the Rangers AHL squad because he feels he has more maturing and learning to do.

That is the whole premise I am trying to bring up here. If a team or a guy thinks they need to make the the next step in development, they should be able to do it. This shouldn't be about "oh, by my CHL team is going to lose money if they lose this player." The NCAA is making money off these kids too, but that doesn't stop them from allowing them to leave.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thegodfather View Post
You do realize it's called Jr Hockey for a reason correct ? They are still kids and you want to stick them in the AHL with young men
That was hardly my point, to stick every player drafted by each team on their AHL squad. Some guys are ready for the AHL at 18 and 19. Some are not. Therefore those that are ready should be allowed to make the choice to jump. However, they aren't allowed the possibility because it might "hurt the league" and it's bottom line.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thegodfather View Post
Most of these kids still attend school but I guess it's okay for them to skip it because they are playing in the AHL.
If the kid thinks they are ready to, then yes. It happens all the team in the NCAA. It happens all the time in real life too. If a kid, his family, his advisors, his agent or his team think he is better off working than going to school, why should he not be allowed to?

Quote:
Originally Posted by thegodfather View Post
In closing watch your comments about Canada and the members from here disagreeing with you. I have a short fuse when it comes to people bashing a nation and it's people.

It goes both ways..
Watch my comments about Canada? I am not allowed to point out a fact? That Canadians with biased interest in the argument are going to be against it? Hardly bashing a nation. I love Canada and love watch CHL games and love all the people I know from Canada. But I stand by my comments about the Canadian people disagreeing with my point...hardly anything bashing them for being Canadian or even bashing them at all. Just pointing out the bias.

NinthSpoke06 is offline  
Old
04-11-2011, 02:15 PM
  #863
patty59
***************
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Lethbridge, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,686
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NathanSeguin View Post



If the kid thinks they are ready to, then yes. It happens all the team in the NCAA. It happens all the time in real life too. If a kid, his family, his advisors, his agent or his team think he is better off working than going to school, why should he not be allowed to?



.


Really, all the time? How many 18-19 year olds stepped out of the NCAA this season to play in the AHL?

patty59 is offline  
Old
04-11-2011, 02:17 PM
  #864
KnightofBoston
MVP
 
KnightofBoston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Amherst, Ma
Country: United States
Posts: 12,519
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thegodfather View Post
Of course you don't care that the CHL is big business in Canada, you live in the States, if all the Jr teams were based in the States I'd guess your views would be different.
That's not necessarily true, many american hockey fans are NHL fans first, the ultimate goal is for the Bruins to be successful and win - I for one would definitely opt for success of the big club before the success of our junior level club (if there was one)

Quote:
Originally Posted by thegodfather View Post

You do realize it's called Jr Hockey for a reason correct ? They are still kids and you want to stick them in the AHL with young men

Most of these kids still attend school but I guess it's okay for them to skip it because they are playing in the AHL.

In closing watch your comments about Canada and the members from here disagreeing with you. I have a short fuse when it comes to people bashing a nation and it's people.

It goes both ways..
I get what you're saying, but it should be up to both the organization as well as the player where they ultimately go. If Jared Knight for example, felt he was ready to play in providence full time next season, and the coaching staff felt he was ready, why is that such a bad thing? I understand the talent pool argument, but there's a good rise in hockey sign ups and in a few years who knows - maybe there will be a steady flow of really good players playing for 2 years, and then being physically and mentally ready for AHL at age 18-19. If a player is truly talented and makes an AHL team, it should be their decision what they do with their life, and they still have plenty of time to get their education sorted out.

KnightofBoston is offline  
Old
04-11-2011, 02:46 PM
  #865
Saxon Eric
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Mendon/Greenfield NH
Country: United States
Posts: 3,112
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Saxon Eric
Quote:
Originally Posted by patty59 View Post
Really, all the time? How many 18-19 year olds stepped out of the NCAA this season to play in the AHL?
You would have to go through the AHL transaction thread with a microscope but I would guess less than 10, last one's for the Bruins was Kampfer and Bartkowski but they were slightly older, I think Jonathan Sigalet was 19 when he came to Providence

Saxon Eric is offline  
Old
04-11-2011, 02:48 PM
  #866
NinthSpoke06
Registered User
 
NinthSpoke06's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Chestnut Hill
Country: United States
Posts: 9,569
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saxon Eric View Post
You would have to go through the AHL transaction thread with a microscope but I would guess less than 10, last one's for the Bruins was Kampfer and Bartkowski but they were slightly older, I think Jonathan Sigalet was 19 when he came to Providence
Lets not forget that the CHL clearly has more, more talented 18-19 year olds. Hell just look at the CSS rankings for North Americans and that about says it all.

NinthSpoke06 is offline  
Old
04-11-2011, 03:00 PM
  #867
patty59
***************
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Lethbridge, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,686
vCash: 500
I guess I just don't really see it as such a big deal. If the player is so good that he doesn't belong in Jr anymore then he should be playing with the big club. I highly doubt that KNight and Spooner playing another year in the OHL is going to hinder their development at all. Also, if they aren't ready for the NHL why would you want them "burning" a year off of their contract, when they have almost 0 chance of contributing to the big club?

IMO, their is quite a bit more to this then the CHL being greedy or Canadians complaining about losing their talent.

patty59 is offline  
Old
04-11-2011, 03:25 PM
  #868
WreckItRask
Registered User
 
WreckItRask's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Minnesota
Country: United States
Posts: 7,080
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by patty59 View Post
I guess I just don't really see it as such a big deal. If the player is so good that he doesn't belong in Jr anymore then he should be playing with the big club. I highly doubt that KNight and Spooner playing another year in the OHL is going to hinder their development at all. Also, if they aren't ready for the NHL why would you want them "burning" a year off of their contract, when they have almost 0 chance of contributing to the big club?

IMO, their is quite a bit more to this then the CHL being greedy or Canadians complaining about losing their talent.
I've heard the bolded a few times now. Teams are far less concerned about "burning" a year off a contract than they are about properly developing their own prospects. Joe Colborne is probably the best recent example of this. They signed him after his sophomore year with virtually zero expectations that he would be an NHL player in his first year. Simply put, they felt it was time for him to turn pro, and learn what it takes to be successful as a pro...even if it meant "burning a year" off his contract. They did it with Matt Bartkowski last year, and they just did again with David Warsofsky. In all three cases they could have told them to stick in college for another year or two, but all parties got together (parents, agents, team, etc) and decided it was the right time to move on. My math might be fuzzy, but I think two of those three guys would have been forced to play an extra year of junior if they came from the CHL under the current rules.

As for the last line, you're right, there is a lot more than that. But to use arguments like "you want to pull them out of school," or "why burn a contract year," as a main defense is simply disingenuous. I have no problem with the CHL and it's fans flatly saying that the current system is in place to prevent the level of play from dropping off because of defections to the AHL. That's a valid argument, and given how much talent they're pumping to the NHL, they certainly deserve a major say in this discussion if it comes under review. But let's agree to leave all the semantics and hollow arguments out of the conversation, as if the system is somehow in place to protect it's players educationally...that's totally bogus.

There may be more to it than greed, but it's a part of it, and it's being myopic to ignore that imo. I don't think the system is ever going to blown up to allow players/NHL clubs to do whatever they want, but I don't think it's unfair to allow clubs certain exceptions when they feel it's time for some of their prospects to be tested at the next level.

WreckItRask is offline  
Old
04-11-2011, 03:49 PM
  #869
patty59
***************
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Lethbridge, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,686
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neely06 View Post
I've heard the bolded a few times now. Teams are far less concerned about "burning" a year off a contract than they are about properly developing their own prospects. Joe Colborne is probably the best recent example of this. They signed him after his sophomore year with virtually zero expectations that he would be an NHL player in his first year. Simply put, they felt it was time for him to turn pro, and learn what it takes to be successful as a pro...even if it meant "burning a year" off his contract. They did it with Matt Bartkowski last year, and they just did again with David Warsofsky. In all three cases they could have told them to stick in college for another year or two, but all parties got together (parents, agents, team, etc) and decided it was the right time to move on. My math might be fuzzy, but I think two of those three guys would have been forced to play an extra year of junior if they came from the CHL under the current rules.

As for the last line, you're right, there is a lot more than that. But to use arguments like "you want to pull them out of school," or "why burn a contract year," as a main defense is simply disingenuous. I have no problem with the CHL and it's fans flatly saying that the current system is in place to prevent the level of play from dropping off because of defections to the AHL. That's a valid argument, and given how much talent they're pumping to the NHL, they certainly deserve a major say in this discussion if it comes under review. But let's agree to leave all the semantics and hollow arguments out of the conversation, as if the system is somehow in place to protect it's players educationally...that's totally bogus.

There may be more to it than greed, but it's a part of it, and it's being myopic to ignore that imo. I don't think the system is ever going to blown up to allow players/NHL clubs to do whatever they want, but I don't think it's unfair to allow clubs certain exceptions when they feel it's time for some of their prospects to be tested at the next level.

Colborne and Warsofsky were both 20 when they signed and Bartkowski was 21. These aren't 18 year old kids, these guys entered the AHL at the same age as they would have been had they played in the CHL.

patty59 is offline  
Old
04-11-2011, 03:59 PM
  #870
NinthSpoke06
Registered User
 
NinthSpoke06's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Chestnut Hill
Country: United States
Posts: 9,569
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by patty59 View Post
Colborne and Warsofsky were both 20 when they signed and Bartkowski was 21. These aren't 18 year old kids, these guys entered the AHL at the same age as they would have been had they played in the CHL.
Correct. However, seeing as guys cannot start playing in the NCAA until they are 18 years old this is pretty much a moot point.

The CHL is regarded by many as the best development league out there and kids start playing and "developing" when they are 15-16. These NCAA guys are still a level lower than the CHL guys because they are playing in the USHL, BCHL, AJHL, High school etc. until they are 18. Big difference in developmental curves.

NinthSpoke06 is offline  
Old
04-11-2011, 04:12 PM
  #871
WreckItRask
Registered User
 
WreckItRask's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Minnesota
Country: United States
Posts: 7,080
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by patty59 View Post
Colborne and Warsofsky were both 20 when they signed and Bartkowski was 21. These aren't 18 year old kids, these guys entered the AHL at the same age as they would have been had they played in the CHL.
It's semantics though. Spooner and Knight aren't going to be 18 year old kids next season either. They're both going to be 20 in January. These are the types of kids that I'm referring to.

If you've read my posts in this thread I've stated all along the rule shouldn't be changed for players in the first year after they're drafted...you should either play in the NHL or go back to junior. I have no problem with that rule at all. Where I think there needs to be wiggle room for NHL clubs is when they're forced to send their higher end soon to be 20 year old prospects back to junior, when it's clear that they're ready to be professional hockey players. And to clarify, I think a compromise could easily made to put a hard cap on the amount of player's that a club can promote to the AHL in this regard. I think guys like Cunningham, Button, Bodnarchuk, etc should stay for that extra year in the CHL. We're not talking about eliminating every 19 year old from playing in the CHL, but rather allowing NHL clubs to identify a few players (a year post-draft) that they feel are ready to take the next step. IMO, the rule is so black and white, that it doesn't take into account common sense. Sometimes kids are just ready to move on.

Do you really believe that Knight or Spooner have any interest of going back to play in the OHL next year? Why don't they and their NHL clubs get a say in what's best for them at this point?

WreckItRask is offline  
Old
04-11-2011, 04:20 PM
  #872
patty59
***************
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Lethbridge, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,686
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neely06 View Post
It's semantics though. Spooner and Knight aren't going to be 18 year old kids next season either. They're both going to be 20 in January. These are the types of kids that I'm referring to.

If you've read my posts in this thread I've stated all along the rule shouldn't be changed for players in the first year after they're drafted...you should either play in the NHL or go back to junior. I have no problem with that rule at all. Where I think there needs to be wiggle room for NHL clubs is when they're forced to send their higher end soon to be 20 year old prospects back to junior, when it's clear that they're ready to be professional hockey players. And to clarify, I think a compromise could easily made to put a hard cap on the amount of player's that a club can promote to the AHL in this regard. I think guys like Cunningham, Button, Bodnarchuk, etc should stay for that extra year in the CHL. We're not talking about eliminating every 19 year old from playing in the CHL, but rather allowing NHL clubs to identify a few players (a year post-draft) that they feel are ready to take the next step. IMO, the rule is so black and white, that it doesn't take into account common sense. Sometimes kids are just ready to move on.

Do you really believe that Knight or Spooner have any interest of going back to play in the OHL next year? Why don't they and their NHL clubs get a say in what's best for them at this point?

Well, I'd hope so, since that's the likely outcome next October.

I see where you're coming from, but if it was a big deal to the NHL clubs I'm sure they would have tried to get a change in the rule, no?

Do you really think that based on 3 games at the AHL level that Spooner and Knight are ready to make the jump and are cut out physically to handle the pro game? Is it really going to hinder their development to spend another year in the OHL if they aren't going to play on the Bruins?

They would also, more then likely miss out on the opportunity to play in the WJC.

patty59 is offline  
Old
04-11-2011, 04:57 PM
  #873
rocketdan9
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,277
vCash: 500
Spooner reminds me of martin st louis. Anyone else feel he will turn out to be a better player than seguin and knight? Scouts def undervalued this kid

rocketdan9 is offline  
Old
04-11-2011, 05:05 PM
  #874
DaaaaB's
Registered User
 
DaaaaB's's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,269
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saxon Eric View Post
Good thing you set me straight it really should be up to the player, his parents and his NHL club on what's best for him and not some money hungry Gm trying to put fannies in the seats in Moose Jaw, I will tell you that their preference is to start making real money and learning the pro game in the Ahl and that should be made on a player by player basis
Not sure why that's funny. It would obviously hurt the development of the 16, 17 & 18 year olds in the league but apparantly that doesn't mean anything to you. Let's gradually make the players worse. Good idea.

What's funny is you ignoring my point about Spooner and Knight not being anywhere near the best players in the OHL anyhow. See I've actually seen these guys play dozens of times this year and I'll tell you right now that Spooner is not physically ready to play an 80 game schedule against grown men.

Why would you think a player knows what's best for himself? Obviously, they would want to play at the higher level but there's a reason they have people advising them. Do you really think rushing players into pro hockey is always the best route for their development?

If so, see Malhotra, Manny and Gillies, Colton and Sheppard, James amongst others.

I'd also be willing to bet that Chia & Neely could care less about the two going back to the CHL and would maybe even prefer it over the AHL. The only people who are up in arms about it are the pro-NCAA crowd.

DaaaaB's is offline  
Old
04-11-2011, 05:13 PM
  #875
DaaaaB's
Registered User
 
DaaaaB's's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,269
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NathanSeguin View Post
For example, Cam Atkinson was a Junior in his 3rd year here at BC. But he had put up back to back 50 point seasons with 30 goals each year and was a Hobey Baker candidate both years and he won a National Championship with the squad last year. He had 1 year of eligibility, but he and pretty much everyone in the NCAA knew it was best for him to try to learn the pro game. He is one of the smaller players out there, so it was vital for him to learn how to play against men if he wants any chance of succeeding the NHL. So he left to join the Blue Jackets AHL team. Chris Kreider is on the verge of doing the opposite, coming back to BC rather than going to the Rangers AHL squad because he feels he has more maturing and learning to do.

That is the whole premise I am trying to bring up here. If a team or a guy thinks they need to make the the next step in development, they should be able to do it. This shouldn't be about "oh, by my CHL team is going to lose money if they lose this player." The NCAA is making money off these kids too, but that doesn't stop them from allowing them to leave.
A completely pointless example here. You're comparing a player who will be 22 at the start of next year to a player who will be 19. How that is a fair comparision is beyond me.

DaaaaB's is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:23 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.