I sort of feel bad for Falk, he had a great camp and good start to the year, and now he finds himself back in Houston after Fletcher told him he could find a place here.
Well, I guess that's the business though. He will be back up here again I'm sure, but Scandella has been playing great, and if he struggles, there's always the option to send him down. We will have that option for this whole year and next for Scandella, so it's quite a bit different than Sheppard.
Guess this mean's Stoner will be he routing healthy scratch. No way does Barker or Scandella sit. I suppose it's better to have Falk playing lots of minutes in Houston though, and he's on a 2-way.
That is why I am shocked. Wasn't it just a couple of weeks ago when Falk was told to find a place? Hmmm. Way to build a reputation, Mr. Fletcher...
I'm sure Fletcher isn't the first GM to do this, and Falk isn't the first player that this has happened to, and neither of them will be the last. It's unfortunate, but who knows? Maybe it'll just be for a week while Fletcher finds a trading partner for Barker
If Falk doesn't have to go through waivers, that was the reason he was sent down.
If he does have to go through waivers, this is a horrible, horrible decision. Falk has played great and should be part of this blueline for years to come.
I am a little bit surprised as well. I know he had a few rough games recently but he was arguably the most consistent d-man the first few weeks. He is still plenty young but after having such a good camp and playing very well overall for a rookie, I am surprised that a few bad games did the trick.
I get the business part. I understand that they aren't going to sit Barker. I understand that they will keep Scandella due to his play.
I don't get keeping Stoner. Yes, he requires waivers and is on a one-way. But, Falk came into camp in shape, ready to play, worked his butt off and has outplayed Stoner easily. Falk has shown he has the mobility and physicality to play in the NHL. But, he is young and will go through growing pains. I'd rather Falk be rewarded for a few months of hard work and go through those growing pains here.
But how would he be rewarded? All Stoner is going to do is get scratched every game. I don't want Scandella or Falk sitting and watching, so if Scandella is going to be up here, I'd rather have Falk down in Houston and playing. I just hope the disappointment of getting sent down doesn't change his attitude or hurt his confidence.
I am neither shocked nor appalled by this. They gave him a taste of the big leagues. He's struggled as of late, why not send him down to the minors to give him some time to regain his confidence and work on things he may need to improve on.
None on us know what was said behind closed doors either.
I am disappointed that I won't be able to hear "Big Justin Falk" anymore. /rollseyes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Jan Itor
But how would he be rewarded? All Stoner is going to do is get scratched every game. I don't want Scandella or Falk sitting and watching, so if Scandella is going to be up here, I'd rather have Falk down in Houston and playing. I just hope the disappointment of getting sent down doesn't change his attitude or hurt his confidence.
I think he meant Falk was rewarded by being called up to the Big's
I don't get keeping Stoner. Yes, he requires waivers and is on a one-way. But, Falk came into camp in shape, ready to play, worked his butt off and has outplayed Stoner easily. Falk has shown he has the mobility and physicality to play in the NHL. But, he is young and will go through growing pains. I'd rather Falk be rewarded for a few months of hard work and go through those growing pains here.
We are keeping Stoner because he is a league-minimum #7 Dman on a one-way contract, who has maxed out his development in Houston and he's actually been decent after a rough start.
That's kind of exactly the type of guy you want as a #7. A guy who can step in for injuries and who doesn't hurt the team when he's sitting in the pressbox.
But how would he be rewarded? All Stoner is going to do is get scratched every game. I don't want Scandella or Falk sitting and watching, so if Scandella is going to be up here, I'd rather have Falk down in Houston and playing. I just hope the disappointment of getting sent down doesn't change his attitude or hurt his confidence.
You are right.
I responded before actually thinking rationally about the situation. He will be back up before the end of the season. And, as many of you have mentioned, it's better for him to play in Houston than sit here.
I have a soft spot for Falk...never rated high, played two years in the AHL that weren't all that eye-popping, then comes into camp and plays quite well for the first month of the season. But, he will be back. He and Scandella will be some big mobile defenseman for the Wild future.
Last edited by Jbcraig1883: 11-18-2010 at 12:36 PM.
Reason: first response knee-jerk emotional response
i kinda thought this might happen when i posted my caution to not start bowing down to Scandella...i kinda feared that richards would react much the same way. oh well...i guess it could just as easily turn out for the better.
We are keeping Stoner because he is a league-minimum #7 Dman on a one-way contract, who has maxed out his development in Houston and he's actually been decent after a rough start.
That's kind of exactly the type of guy you want as a #7. A guy who can step in for injuries and who doesn't hurt the team when he's sitting in the pressbox.
A little surprised but not really. Both don't require waivers and Scandella's playing better. We're also talking about third-pairing defensemen, which in all fairness to what they can or will become, are pretty interchangeable.
__________________
Blog: First Round Bust: A Cast of Thousands celebrating a rather dodgy track record of Minnesota Wild Drafting.
"Will beats skill when skill doesn't have enough will."
-Doug Woog
Scandella's the better d-man. Yeah, its tough to send Falk down when he's arguably better than Barker/Stoner, but like Russo says, Falk has a 2-way and doesn't need waivers, so it makes the choice obvious. You don't want to bring up a first-year pro for 3 games anyways, so its nice to see Scandella stick. Its up to him to continue playing well enough to keep Falk in Houston.
Stoner's contract, irresponsibly handed to him, bails him out. The guys that should be sitting (Stoner and Barker) aren't simply because of their contracts.
I think you mean that they are staying with the big club because of their contracts because they can have popcorn duties (and have had them) regardless of the money being made.
I'd be fine with Falk eating popcorn in the pressbox, but at the same time he can go down and get game action affecting nothing. Stoner's contract doesn't really bother me because ideally you want your #7 making 600k or less, and be just a fringe-NHLer so you have cap to spend elsewhere. Barker's the problem. It seems like every 3rd post I make on this board goes back to that fact. I've defended alot of players between here and the WMB of old, but I can't defend Barker. He's that disappointing.
