Morgan Rielly

[CarltonTheBear]

Can they play Liles?  Thought he was priced out of the NHL by Bozak's contract/cap hit.

If Rielly was sent back to juniors or there's a body on LTIR then there's enough space for Liles. All but $925k of his cap hit is still being counted, so the team would just need to have that amount cleared.

 

[ZBBM]

Can they play Liles?  Thought he was priced out of the NHL by Bozak's contract/cap hit.

If Rielly was sent back to juniors or there's a body on LTIR then there's enough space for Liles. All but $925k of his cap hit is still being counted, so the team would just need to have that amount cleared.

Knowing this makes me lean toward sending him back, reluctantly.  He hasn't been a slam dunk, like Monahan for ex.

 

[Peter D.]

I'd keep Ranger over Fraser. I think he's getting better and as a bonus he has a smaller cap hit than Fraser.

I'm all for keeping Ranger over Fraser, but knowing Carlyle he'd prefer Fraser.

 

[Bender]

Monahan and Hertl are slam dunks it seems, but Rielly isn't a slouch. I still think he has nothing more to learn at the WHL level and should keep learning in the NHL. As a first timer he's doing fairly well for himself.

 

[Redleaf]

Monahan and Hertl are slam dunks it seems, but Rielly isn't a slouch. I still think he has nothing more to learn at the WHL level and should keep learning in the NHL. As a first timer he's doing fairly well for himself.

Biggest difference being, besides their positions, is that Reilly isn't going to stick around because of production (or lack of). Carlyle wants him to strengthen his defensive game first and foremost. The points will come later. At least that's how it looks to me.

 

[princedpw]

By the way, there is a common phrase "no prospect has ever been ruined by spending too much time in the minors".  There's another phrase "this prospect (eg: Luke Schenn) was brought up too early and ruined". 

This is obvious, but in neither case do we ever know what was the right move because we can't go back in time and play it out making the other choice.  The guy who was brought up early and then burns out and doesn't meet expectations, might also have burned out and not met expectations if he played in the minors.  The guy who excels in the minors, is brought up later and excels in the NHL, might have been even better in the NHL if he was brought up to the NHL right away.  I'm not sure why people pretend to know that an alternate reality would have been a better one ....

 

[Bullfrog]

By the way, there is a common phrase "no prospect has ever been ruined by spending too much time in the minors".  There's another phrase "this prospect (eg: Luke Schenn) was brought up too early and ruined". 

Whether it's common or not, do we know it to be true?

 

[Deebo]

He's staying past game 9 says Carlyle, doesn't guarantee he'll be here all season though.

 

[Redleaf]

He's staying past game 9 says Carlyle, doesn't guarantee he'll be here all season though.

Yeah. Its official. He's staying on now...

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=434913

 

[Kin]

It's a good decision. If the only real consequence is a year being burned off of an ELC I don't think that's enough of a drawback to justify sending him to junior if he's playing well enough for the NHL right now.

 

[ZBBM]

Ambivalent.

If he could play in the AHL instead of junior, there'd be no doubt in my mind -- he needs seasoning defensively.

But going back to junior won't help him.  A stupid, stupid rule whose only purpose is to prop up the CHL.

Oh well, we'll just have to live with some mistakes on the d side.  The other side, we don't have to worry about.

 

[princedpw]

By the way, there is a common phrase "no prospect has ever been ruined by spending too much time in the minors".  There's another phrase "this prospect (eg: Luke Schenn) was brought up too early and ruined". 

Whether it's common or not, do we know it to be true?

Well, my point was that I don't think we know it to be true, but it seems that people often assume such claims are true without questioning them very much.

 

[Kin]

But going back to junior won't help him.  A stupid, stupid rule whose only purpose is to prop up the CHL.

It's interesting though. I agree with you about that rule but I wonder if there's an alternative short of the NHL actually operating its own purely developmental league that signs 15 or 16 year olds. The reason the American system has worked the way it does over the years is because players have no contractual obligation with their schools/colleges and can leave to go pro. Big soccer clubs, on the other hand, sign players as young as 9 to establish a contractual relationship wherein they can sell/trade a player as he develops. So while I agree that the rule as it exists doesn't help the NHL, it seems as though the trade-off they make is that they don't have to involve themselves in player development until a player is 18 and teams have a pretty good sense of how good a player will be.

I mean if I'm a CHL team or the CHL itself and the NHL decides that they want to put 18 year olds in the AHL, why wouldn't I just start signing players to actual contracts and negotiate with individual NHL teams on that basis? Right? Like by the same rationale that says the NHL shouldn't prop up the CHL would mean the CHL shouldn't exist just as a feeder league either.

 

[ZBBM]

But going back to junior won't help him.  A stupid, stupid rule whose only purpose is to prop up the CHL.

It's interesting though. I agree with you about that rule but I wonder if there's an alternative short of the NHL actually operating its own purely developmental league that signs 15 or 16 year olds. The reason the American system has worked the way it does over the years is because players have no contractual obligation with their schools/colleges and can leave to go pro. Big soccer clubs, on the other hand, sign players as young as 9 to establish a contractual relationship wherein they can sell/trade a player as he develops. So while I agree that the rule as it exists doesn't help the NHL, it seems as though the trade-off they make is that they don't have to involve themselves in player development until a player is 18 and teams have a pretty good sense of how good a player will be.

I mean if I'm a CHL team or the CHL itself and the NHL decides that they want to put 18 year olds in the AHL, why wouldn't I just start signing players to actual contracts and negotiate with individual NHL teams on that basis? Right? Like by the same rationale that says the NHL shouldn't prop up the CHL would mean the CHL shouldn't exist just as a feeder league either.

It seems to me the obvious choice would be to grant some players exceptional status ... or even simpler, just allow the NHL club to have the option of assigning 1st-rounders to the AHL.  Then you aren't gutting the whole junior roster -- only cherry-picking it.  8)

 

[AvroArrow]

But going back to junior won't help him.  A stupid, stupid rule whose only purpose is to prop up the CHL.

They need to change this.  Provide 1 exception per year, or something...

 

[Kin]

It seems to me the obvious choice would be to grant some players exceptional status ... or even simpler, just allow the NHL club to have the option of assigning 1st-rounders to the AHL.  Then you aren't gutting the whole junior roster -- only cherry-picking it.  8)

I don't know. Given that first rounders are typically the only guys who make it an issue in the first place it seems to me as though that "compromise" is tantamount to, you know, the NFL agreeing to not draft any high schooler provided they're under 160 pounds.

 

[Deebo]

Maybe a limit on how many junior aged players you can assign to the AHL in a period of time could work. Maybe once a club assigns a junior aged player to the AHL, that club can't assign another junior aged player to the AHL for a set number of years.

Or base it on draft year, if you assign a junior aged player to the AHL from the 2012 draft, you can't do it with another player until the 2016 draft year.

 

[bustaheims]

There really isn't a middle ground the CHL will agree to. They're just not going to agree to a system where they lose their best players to any league other than the NHL.

 

[Kin]

Maybe a limit on how many junior aged players you can assign to the AHL in a period of time could work. Maybe once a club assigns a junior aged player to the AHL, that club can't assign another junior aged player to the AHL for a set number of years.

Or base it on draft year, if you assign a junior aged player to the AHL from the 2012 draft, you can't do it with another player until the 2016 draft year.

But then you sort of make both sides mad and don't resolve the issue. The CHL will lose out on elite players and NHL teams won't have the freedom to do what they want with their prospects.

Personally, I really do think the change needs to be a radical one where the NHL does, essentially, take over the development in minor hockey whether that's through the purchase of the CHL or adopting a more soccer-like model.

 

[Stronger Than All]

Congrats to Morgan Rielly!