The Development Myth

Jonathan Willis
October 08 2008 01:21PM

A common refrain among fans of all stripes, and probably in all sports for that matter, is the need to “play the kids”. In this same vein comes a theory that’s espoused by a whole bunch of people, a theory that works something like this:

If a team has an obvious hole and the only options to fill it are either under-qualified veterans or unproven prospects, it’s in the organization’s long-term interest to give the job to the prospect.

There’s nothing obviously wrong with that statement. Clearly, wasting a roster spot on a veteran who can’t keep up is a worse solution than investing it in a player on the upswing of his career; both players will make mistakes, but only one player is going to come out of it better.

The unmentioned third option is acquiring a veteran who can clearly carry the load. It’s probably unsurprising to people who read me with any amount of regularity that I strongly feel that the unmentioned third option is almost always the right one. Sometimes, it’s simply not possible (cap/budget constraints, too many holes, holes that are too big, etc.), but as a general rule, I think it’s the way to go.

Moving out of the abstract, let’s look at the Oilers’ situation in particular (i.e. the third line centre position). Oilers blogger Sean (of Puck Donkey) framed the question rather nicely on Lowetide’s site yesterday:

Pouliot or Brodziak might be capable but it’s gonna cost something. At the same time you can’t develop them without putting them in those situations. Are we in development mode or win mode?

I think the answer to that last question should be clear, despite the trade for a player like Cole (in the last year of his contract, impending UFA): the Edmonton Oilers are still in development mode, because the roster is clearly a step behind the contending teams. Despite that, I think the best solution is to acquire a capable veteran (say, Manny Malhotra, who is both plausibly available and did a good job in the role last season). I think this for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it will not harm the development of forwards such as Kyle Brodziak and Marc Pouliot.

The reason that it wouldn’t harm the development of Pouliot/Brodziak is that rookies should not receive elevations in role until they prove capable of handling them – and for now, Brodziak hasn’t proved he can play above the 4th line, and Pouliot has yet to prove he can play regularly in the NHL. When they show they can handle more responsibility, injuries and slumps will ensure that they get it.

Let’s use some examples from last season.

This is an excerpt from the September 29th, 2007 Edmonton Journal (preserved in Lowetide’s archives):

Between now and then, there are three avenues for the decision-makers. The Oilers will either carry eight defencemen, find a trading partner, or send Ladislav Smid to the minors. It is not the most probable course of action, but Smid is on a two-way contract. Tom Gilbert, despite his standout play, will likely start the season in Springfield. He is the only other candidate who can bypass waivers on the way down.

The eight defensemen ahead of Tom Gilbert on the depth chart entering training camp:

Joni Pitkanen Steve Staios Sheldon Souray Matt Greene Denis Grebeshkov Ladislav Smid Dick Tarnstrom Mathieu Roy

Where could Gilbert possibly slot in? We know what eventually happened – Smid started in the minors, and the Oilers risked Mathieu Roy on the waiver wire. Tom Gilbert had a standout season and was rewarded this summer with a 6-year, 24-million dollar contract.

How did that happen? Tom Gilbert earned a spot. He played head and shoulders above some of the other options in training camp, and early in the season established himself as one of MacTavish’s most reliable options on the blueline. Pitkanen, Souray and Greene all suffered injuries and missed a bunch of time. 94 NHL games were handed out to players who didn’t make the team on opening night (Smid, Roy, Rourke, Young, Peckham). Over the course of the season, opportunities always come along; there’s certainly no need to leave a glaring hole on the roster (in this case, top-4 defenseman) simply so a prospect can get a shot at the role – he’ll get a shot at the role at some point anyway, and if he makes the most of his chance, he’ll keep moving up the depth chart.

Up front, Kyle Brodziak’s 2007-08 season shows again that a player doesn’t need a slot created for him. Here are the forwards in contention for jobs entering TC last season:

Hemsky, Horcoff, Penner, Stoll, Torres, Moreau, Reasoner, Nilsson, Pouliot, Sanderson, Jacques, Thoreson, Brodziak, Stortini, Cogliano, Schremp, Trukhno, Gagner

Three players behind Brodziak (Stortini, Cogliano, Gagner) ended up playing major roles on the team, with both Cogliano and Gagner cracking the roster on opening night. Thoreson was waived, Jacques was hurt/sent down, and there was the usual run of injuries (Horcoff/Torres/Moreau/Sanderson). Thus, despite incredible seasons by players behind him on the depth chart, Brodziak played in 80 games and played a key role on the team, notably on the penalty-kill.

That takes us back to the present. Brodziak is much higher on the forward depth chart this time around (i.e. he has not only a job but some distance between himself and the end of roster players); even with the acquisition of a veteran like Malhotra, he’s all but certain to play in the top-nine at some point this coming season. It boils down to a key statement that I feel comfortable making:

A prospect who succeeds in a given role will continue to be elevated up the roster as circumstance (slumps, injuries, etc.) always creates holes that need to be filled.

As for the idea that certain players (be they Brodziak/Pouliot or other prospects) need holes created for them, or special treatment granted to them, I don’t think I’m off when I call it baseless. If they’re good enough to play in the NHL, they’re good enough to play in the NHL, and if they’re good enough to play a certain role, they’ll get a shot at it – period.

- Willis is the smartest person on Earth with the following exceptions: Einstein, Lowetide and JC Chasez formerly of N*Sync. Read about his genius at Copper and Blue.

74b7cedc5d8bfbe88cf071309e98d2c3
Jonathan Willis is Managing Editor of the Nation Network. He also currently writes for the Edmonton Journal's Cult of Hockey, Grantland, and Hockey Prospectus. His work has appeared at theScore, ESPN and Puck Daddy. He was previously founder and managing editor of Copper & Blue. Contact him at jonathan (dot) willis (at) live (dot) ca.
Avatar
#1 Fiveandagame
October 08 2008, 02:04PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Who could argue with that.....why didn't you just say that when we all went ballistic on you for suggesting we bring in whats his nuts from Montreal...you know Smolinski....

Good players play, better players play more. Good young players develop, old players play in Calgary...

Avatar
#2 R-Gib
October 08 2008, 02:48PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Spot on Jonathan.

Hypothetically, what would you see the Oil giving up to land a Malhotra?

Avatar
#3 Jonathan Willis
October 08 2008, 02:59PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Hypothetically, what would you see the Oil giving up to land a Malhotra?

I have no idea, actually - I'm not sure what Columbus needs. I'd certainly be comfortable trading a fringe player, perhaps Pouliot, but I don't know if Columbus would make that trade because I certainly wouldn't on their end.

Avatar
#4 R-Gib
October 08 2008, 03:51PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

"I’d certainly be comfortable trading a fringe player, perhaps Pouliot, but I don’t know if Columbus would make that trade because I certainly wouldn’t on their end."

No kidding. I see a prospects/picks package... or maybe an extra D (Smid, perhaps?) and/or a skilled young guy who doesn't really fit (Hello, Sugartits!). But it would certainly depend on what the receiving end values most.

I'm of the opinion that we should fill this hole (3C) sooner rather than later. A Malhotra or a Scott Nichol would fit nicely. As LT keeps pointing out, an extra 2 points in October can mean a world of difference come April.

Avatar
#5 Jonathan Willis
October 08 2008, 03:54PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

No kidding. I see a prospects/picks package… or maybe an extra D (Smid, perhaps?) and/or a skilled young guy who doesn’t really fit (Hello, Sugartits!). But it would certainly depend on what the receiving end values most.

Well, I know Columbus is set on D - they'd probably be looking for picks/prospects, I imagine.

And for the record, I wouldn't trade Smid. I'm a big believer in him as a prospect.

Avatar
#6 jdrevenge
October 08 2008, 04:29PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Where does Brule fit in all this?If he goes down and shows he can be reliable on d then wouldn't he push Pouliot?

Avatar
#7 jdrevenge
October 08 2008, 04:30PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

playing defensive hockey that is...

Avatar
#8 Jonathan Willis
October 08 2008, 04:55PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Where does Brule fit in all this?If he goes down and shows he can be reliable on d then wouldn’t he push Pouliot?

Sure. If and when.

Based on Brule's last two seasons in the bigs, I don't think he's on the cusp of third line duty, though. I'm not sure an offensive role in the minors is going to be bad for him.

Avatar
#9 Fiveandagame
October 08 2008, 05:18PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Jonathan,

//And for the record, I wouldn’t trade Smid. I’m a big believer in him as a prospect.//

I am pretty sure Smid is past the prospect descriptive. He's an NHL'er. I think "prospect " would suggest he teeters on the edge of going to the minors. Prospect puts him in the category of Chorney or Plante. He's an NHL'er, that has yet to reach his max potential, a far cry from prospect.

Just to nit pick.

Avatar
#10 Jonathan Willis
October 08 2008, 05:35PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

I am pretty sure Smid is past the prospect descriptive. He’s an NHL’er. I think “prospect ” would suggest he teeters on the edge of going to the minors. Prospect puts him in the category of Chorney or Plante. He’s an NHL’er, that has yet to reach his max potential, a far cry from prospect.

Fair enough. I'm still a big believer in him as a prospectively better NHL'er, than ;)

Avatar
#11 Fiveandagame
October 08 2008, 06:50PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

I believe in Smid's prospectively better NHL potential too!!!:)

Awww shucks it's nice when we agree.

Avatar
#12 Antony Ta
October 08 2008, 11:08PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Smid's still younger than Gilbert was when Tom made the jump to the NHL. Considering the expectations for Ladi were lower than for Lupul in the Pronger trade, I'd say he's close to being what we expected: a stay-at-home defenseman with better than average skating and passing. If he shows some offensive flair in the goals and assists columns, it would be a bonus.

Avatar
#13 bebop
October 09 2008, 08:34AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

I see absolutely no reason why Brodziak couldn't handle 3rd line centre. He's been one of the most consistent players on the team since he cracked the line-up. Centre is the last position I would look to fill at this point. If we do get another centre than we need to dump a couple bodies, and not D men.

Avatar
#14 Antony Ta
October 09 2008, 01:08PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

The main difference I think is that a guy like Brodziak is versatile enough to play multiple roles reasonably well, whereas Willis and Lowetide are suggesting we acquire a veteran who can play better than just "reasonably well," being groomed in the trade.

On a side note, if we want some who specializes in checking roles, I think Mike Ricci is still available.

Comments are closed for this article.