- Dec 10, 2012
- 41,393
- 19,507
Minnesota Wild General Discussion - 2022-23
- Thread starter TaLoN
- Start date
-
Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
- Status
Yes, I always try to follow along. There were games Beckman was playing on 4th line with Cody. It may just be me, but I feel like he's not patient with young guys not playing his system correctly especially ones who aren't like Rossi.
Even Rossi at times was Demoted to 2nd line C in favor of turgeon ( the C who was signed to two way contract and was playing down there)
I will say that Army hasn't really been given a lot these past few years; especially last year. It was pretty much Rossi, Beckman and company.
You mean a coach that doesn’t just cater to top prospects, but rather makes them earn it?
The. Audacity.
Circulartheory
Registered User
Thats basically how I'm reading it as well.
Not only that, he hasn't even had the luxury of a ton of top prospects. He's done well to get Boldy started (remember how much of a rookie he appeared in the training camp?), Rossi is still up for judgement, and Kunin has developed into a reliable pro player.
Outside of those 3, the highest drafted player he has had the opportunity to truly develop Beckman (#75), Belpedio (#80), and Dewar (#92). Third rounders.
And with those late round prospects, he managed to develop some reliable depth players in Soucy (#4/5 dman), Duhaime (we all love him), Sturm (just won a Stanley Cup), Kahkonen (1A/1B goalie), Dewar, and Seeler. And some strong AHLers in Belpedio, Mayhew and Rau.
Currently developing, Addison is looking to be locked on the main roster, Shaw and Chaffee look like good depth players, and Rossi is awesome.
Also worth mentioning, as Head Coach, the team made the playoffs 2 out of 3 seasons (I didn't include the cancelled COVID playoffs which the team would have made, marking for a 3 out of 4 record). Before then, since moving to Iowa the team never made the playoffs in 5 years and in 3 of those years, the team was 30th, 30th and 28th. Just awful and literally the worst team in the AHL.
So I'm glad we raised this point because I actually didn't realize how good of a coach Tim Army was. Gosh darn.
BagHead
Registered User
I love when I go in with misconceptions that get proven wrong by the stats. It's really refreshing to learn that way.
Nice post!
You don't think it's a bad idea Beckman was playing on 4th line? Or a free agent eild didn't keep was at Times please 1c over Rossi?
Circulartheory
Registered User
I operate with the assumption that he is a head coach of an AHL team, not the Wild prospect team.
Also, I operate with the belief that a winning team with a winning culture out benefits just pure playing time. If you can prove you earn playing time within a winning AHL team, that is the prime situation for development.
To respond to your direct question, I would also argue its a bad idea to give Beckman top line minutes if hes not meeting the milestones set between him and the staff, whether that be a more reliable 200-foot game or perhaps more consistency in his shifts - two aspects he has needed to develop since he was drafted. There's a middle ground here and where the balancing act comes into play - does their play warrant more time? But it's their play that dictates the icetime, not draft pedigree or Minnesota's needs.
I still remember the stink of the team when they were the worst team in the AHL. That was an awful place to put prospects in - even if you gave players time, it was so depressing to watch. When you look back in those years (5 years), only Tuch, Mike Reilly, and Haula (3 players) developed into a NHL career. We developed no cheap depth players which is another important aspect of an AHL coach.
In the last 4 years under Army, we have developed Boldy, Kunin, Soucy, Sturm, Duhaime, Dewar, Kahkokken (7 players) and I would count Addison and Rossi as well, though a bit premature. So thats 9 players in 4 years. And when the debate about drafting vs development and who really should get credit (scouts or coach), I think players like Soucy, Sturm, and Duhaime are very much Army guys.
EDIT: TLDL - It's a balancing act between creating a winning culture/team and rewarding good play. Question arises when rewarding good play with icetime takes away from chances of winning. Because you need both for prime development. And IMO, Army has done a good job with this. Upgraded a terrible Iowa team and has fed the Minnesota team with reliable talent.
Last edited:
I think if either of their play warrants it, then no I don't think it is a bad idea. Could also be trying to create some chemistry outside of the top line.
Eriksson Ek is our best center, yet he is our 2nd/3rd line center.
DeagleJenkins
Registered User
developing top prospects doesnt mean force feeding 1st line TOI.
If the top prospects can’t outperform “AHL ringers” then that’s their fault.
Wasted Talent
Registered User
- Aug 9, 2011
- 3,322
- 2,272
That he outperformed AHL ringers and earned his ice time?
DeagleJenkins
Registered User
some nights he was not up to snuff and got demoted as should be.
20 year old struggled some nights after missing more than a year with a serious illness and consequences from it. Film at 11...
Dickie Dunn
Registered User
Development isn't linear for a lot of guys so I have no problem with a player being moved around the lineup as needed depending on his play and psyche. Is it weird for Beckman to play 4th line in the AHL? Yeah but maybe he that's all he deserved for a time and that's on him. For Rossi, last year was practically a conditioning year. Plus, there is no harm in proving to the phenom that he needs to earn it every night.
It was weird that Rask got automatically penciled in for first line minutes down there since he wasn't going to be on the team.
Just saying that Guerin might not be wrong about making Rossi prove it and that he didn't.
Nino Noderreiter
Registered User
AHL ringers playing more minutes =/= outperforming younger prospects. I think the gripe with this organization in general is that it feels like there are weird choices made to block development/opportunity of younger prospects behind old school catch phrases of "200 foot game" and other terminology used by hockey guys. I question if it's pecking order and coach gamesmanship or actually about the 200 foot game thing.
Now, I'm not saying that prospects shouldn't improve and learn a 200 foot game and there is a line where a guy has an attitude problem. But, forcing a player who is a scoring/finisher to play a dump and chase grind game isn't going to be helpful to that players development. Beckman's chance to make the team is going to be based off of his ability to be a middle 6 secondary scorer who can be a finisher playing with skill players not his ability to dump and chase pucks and play like D Lo or Duhaime.
Now, I'm not saying that prospects shouldn't improve and learn a 200 foot game and there is a line where a guy has an attitude problem. But, forcing a player who is a scoring/finisher to play a dump and chase grind game isn't going to be helpful to that players development. Beckman's chance to make the team is going to be based off of his ability to be a middle 6 secondary scorer who can be a finisher playing with skill players not his ability to dump and chase pucks and play like D Lo or Duhaime.
It's not even that, it's the fact they seek out players like that - that play a strong two-way game. I'd love to have drafted Firkus in the 1st round over Ohgren, because it gives this team a different dimension. There is a reason why some fans want to go after a player like Caufield is because they don't have an electric goal scorer. Kaprizov is amazing and to a certain degree Fiala, but having a player like Gaborik would change the team in a huge way.
Nino Noderreiter
Registered User
I think that's part of it, but the point is even when they do have skill they prefer to put them in mismatched roles for their skillset for tough guy hockey/old school guy hockey reasons. This organization has the same philosophy of the Tom Kelly/Gardenhire Twins where they actively seek out role players and have young players do fundamental things and block young players from roles because of pecking order reasons and make Buxton bunt and put the ball on the ground because "speed" and change his swing plane which ultimately limited his upside.
That's fine if that's what you want and it may even work to some degree and some of the time. In addition, talent may be able to overcome mismanagement but it's not a great long-term strategy to maximize assets and upside. There is not a single reason to ever play Beckman with McLeod and on the 4th line. Why is Beckman working on learning how to bunt and move the runner over instead of getting practice being relied upon to learn how to be a middle-of-the-order hitter in a pro game and take physicality and figure out how to produce scoring?
I mean I'm happy Beckman is learning how to bunt and it's great that he's better as a bottom-of-the-order hitter making productive outs to roll the lineup over to the top of the lineup... but is my question is why and to what end and do we really want/care/prioritize that? Duhaime can be a bottom 6 player and bunt the runner over. It's okay to develop a guy to be a scorer and in a scoring role and it's okay that he's striking out more than he did in college while he learns to hit a pro-level curveball and to develop a major league caliber approach at the plate.
DeagleJenkins
Registered User
wasnt the biggest fan of reading it in terms of baseball analogy but i cant answer why the organization does not want a high offense only player who can dazzle with offensive skill who wont go out of his way to block shots or back check as hard. that is a question for people who are payed to tip toe around it. Old school, there guys, character etc. you name it the answer comes up and does nothing to actually answer it. Id love to have some dazzling offensive prospects who just blow my socks off on offense and are lack luster on defense but it seems as though whenever a player like that pops up, their hockey IQ seems to be in check quite often. excuse or valid concern i could not tell you.
If we dont want to need to develop it we are gonna have to ship off our top 9 and hope to draft high for awhile until some stick as currently we dont have any prospects like that but maybe Yurov can develop into that mold? Hopefully Rossi gets up there once he hits the NHL but unsure what will happen with him.
MuckOG
Registered User
- May 18, 2012
- 15,926
- 5,900
You saying that Kaprizov is not an "electric goal scorer"?
Also, would you prefer Caufield to Boldy?
Last edited:
- Status
Latest posts
-
-
-
MAF gets a shutout and 3 standing ovations in final game in MTL- Latest: OtherThingsILike
