Jared McCann opened up about his stint with the Canucks, saying it took a physical and mental toll on him as a teenager.
ca.sports.yahoo.com
“I could’ve used a year in the AHL,” McCann said. "Mentally, I think it would have helped me. Physically, it would have helped me out. I was 172 pounds playing in the NHL as a 19-year-old. You get tossed around...
Interesting interview with McCann on the Mitts Off podcast. This is why I generally like taking a conservative approach with prospects. Giving them time in the AHL instead of forcing them into the NHL too soon.
He also said he was a huge Kings fan growing up.
There are a few points of disagreement:
1. He wasn't eligible for the AHL as a 19 year-old. So, it was never an option, unless he's talking about getting a few games at the end of the season after spending all year in juniors. So, him saying he could have used a year in the AHL suggests he either doesn't know the rules or he thinks the rules should be changed. If it's the latter, I agree. If it's the former, it's moot. And it's telling that he didn't think he would have benefited from another year in junior hockey.
2. McCann is a scrorer and he was also put in bottom-six minutes. You know those scorers put in grinding roles. How does that work out?
3. He was talking more about how multiple teams were quick to give up on him. I understand that's a direct quote in the article, but I think you ignored the bulk of what he was saying.
4. As mentioned every time we talk about putting young players in bigger roles, we also talk about scaling back responsibility if it gets overwhelming. Not every prospect thrives with going to the NHL right away, just as not every prospect thrives with having to wait 5 years.
I just don't see how having a wider variety of approaches, instead of a dedication to "slow boiling" a prospect, is a bad thing. I fail to see how a prospect playing early in their career and being told early on their coach does not trust them is a GOOD thing - and if you think it's not about trust, listen to interviews and dialogue of why coaches do it.
I think it's a good article, but it really doesn't refute any points we have spent countless hours arguing about.