Prospect Info: Ville Husso (2014 Draft - 94 Overall)

[2 Minute Minor]

Not a single person expected him to play.

Why assume he won't? And why lambast the team based on that assumption, based on almost no information except pessimistic expectations of management? Why get worked up over it one way or the other when we don't know?

The operating procedure here seems to boil down to:
1) Assume the front office is incompetent.
2) Project incompetent decisions that haven't even happened yet.
3) Worry and complain about things that haven't happened.

I think we all want to see Husso's bright future realized. But playing in the ECHL isn't the end of the world, and can reasonably fit into a sensible plan for his development. There ARE positives.

 

[MortiestOfMortys]

Nice to see him ready to grab his opportunities. Is Binnington going to be on the way out? Seems like Copley has moved a notch ahead of him, and Husso will have to be in Chicago next season full time, right?

It's a tough position, our goalies are all clumped so closely together. Last year, Copley and Binnington essentially had the exact same stat line. And then Lundstrom gets called up and posts basically the same thing. Husso this year, in 3 games with Chicago, is actually starting to put some distance numbers-wise between the himself and the other two, but small sample sizes are a ***** for goalies especially, so it's hard to put too much stock in that.

Idk, I remember the days when people used to talk about Binnington like they talk about Husso today. He was one of our top-ranked prospects on HF and in our ranking threads pretty regularly there for awhile. But now he seems to be just a step behind Copley and maybe even Husso. He was all but ordained the starter in camp, so I don't know (and haven't looked to see) if he's getting tougher match-ups or what exactly is going on, but it seems like if we should be moving on from anyone today, it's Binnington. We'd better be damn sure of what we're doing though, before we move on from a guy we've invested 4 pro years (plus 2 junior seasons / offseason conditioning) in.

 

[MortiestOfMortys]

Why assume he won't? And why lambast the team based on that assumption, based on almost no information except pessimistic expectations of management? Why get worked up over it one way or the other when we don't know?

The operating procedure here seems to boil down to:
1) Assume the front office is incompetent.
2) Project incompetent decisions that haven't even happened yet.
3) Worry and complain about things that haven't happened.

I think we all want to see Husso's bright future realized. But playing in the ECHL isn't the end of the world, and can reasonably fit into a sensible plan for his development. There ARE positives.

That pretty much summarizes my response to everything that gets posted on these boards

 

[MissouriMook]

Given Husso's showing last night, it might be possible that they send Binnington to the ECHL to find his game, at least for a few weeks, instead of sending Husso back. He has regressed a bit since having to share the net with Copley, and he could probably use the confidence boost of getting some good games under his belt, even if it means playing down a level. I'm not saying it is likely, just possible.
.
.
.
[cue the Husso has been returned to the Mavericks tweets]

 

[Dbrownss]

That pretty much summarizes my response to everything that gets posted on these boards

Yep....it really does sum everything up.

 

[Majorityof1]

Why assume he won't? And why lambast the team based on that assumption, based on almost no information except pessimistic expectations of management? Why get worked up over it one way or the other when we don't know?

The operating procedure here seems to boil down to:
1) Assume the front office is incompetent.
2) Project incompetent decisions that haven't even happened yet.
3) Worry and complain about things that haven't happened.

I think we all want to see Husso's bright future realized. But playing in the ECHL isn't the end of the world, and can reasonably fit into a sensible plan for his development. There ARE positives.

Preface: Not trying to start an argument here, but just trying to show the flip side.

To some of us who are down on the front-office/coaching, the more positive minded people seem to have just as ridiculous a boiled-down mind-set.

1. Assume the management is infallible and knows what its doing on the basis of them being in a position to do it (Appeal to Authority).
2. Create excuses and/or cite lack of concrete information to explain obvious failures, eg, "Armstrong didn't mess up, we don't know what the offers were for that player that we traded for peanuts."
3. Complain about anyone who is critical of the team or decision making.

I'm all for discussion with people who have a different opinion. I love it. Sometimes I get heated, but with a few exceptions, its not personal. I just like to debate. However, sometimes it seems people who have an opinion contrary to the company line get attacked, not for the content of their opinion, but merely for not towing the line.

For example, someone just claimed Ranksu was not a Blues fan because he is frustrated with management and voices that frustration. Ranksu is someone who is clearly passionate about the team, who gets up in the middle of the night to watch them, yet he is not a fan because he clamors for changes that he thinks will improve the team in the long run? That to me is ridiculous. Now Ranksu is extreme in his approach. However, in another thread, someone just revived the Tage Thompson debate from when he was drafted, Easton, the most articulate and mild-mannered poster we have, was taken to task for disagreeing with management on the pick. I stand by my response there that was bumped. If we are not allowed to disagree with management, vent our frustrations and have spirited discussions with other posters about it all, what exactly is the point of all this?

 

[Majorityof1]

Given Husso's showing last night, it might be possible that they send Binnington to the ECHL to find his game, at least for a few weeks, instead of sending Husso back. He has regressed a bit since having to share the net with Copley, and he could probably use the confidence boost of getting some good games under his belt, even if it means playing down a level. I'm not saying it is likely, just possible.
.
.
.
[cue the Husso has been returned to the Mavericks tweets]

I totally agree about Binnington having regressed. I have no idea what happened but he is not the same player he was. He didn't just stagnate, he got worse from both stats and the eye-test. He doesn't look confident, and he struggles now to get into position. What always impressed me about him was the ease in finding his angles. He was just where he needed to be. That ease is gone and he looks uncomfortable at times. At least from the small sample sizes of times I can watch AHL action.

 

[MissouriMook]

Preface: Not trying to start an argument here, but just trying to show the flip side.

To some of us who are down on the front-office/coaching, the more positive minded people seem to have just as ridiculous a boiled-down mind-set.

1. Assume the management is infallible and knows what its doing on the basis of them being in a position to do it (Appeal to Authority).
2. Create excuses and/or cite lack of concrete information to explain obvious failures, eg, "Armstrong didn't mess up, we don't know what the offers were for that player that we traded for peanuts."
3. Complain about anyone who is critical of the team or decision making.

I'm all for discussion with people who have a different opinion. I love it. Sometimes I get heated, but with a few exceptions, its not personal. I just like to debate. However, sometimes it seems people who have an opinion contrary to the company line get attacked, not for the content of their opinion, but merely for not towing the line.

For example, someone just claimed Ranksu was not a Blues fan because he is frustrated with management and voices that frustration. Ranksu is someone who is clearly passionate about the team, who gets up in the middle of the night to watch them, yet he is not a fan because he clamors for changes that he thinks will improve the team in the long run? That to me is ridiculous. Now Ranksu is extreme in his approach. However, in another thread, someone just revived the Tage Thompson debate from when he was drafted, Easton, the most articulate and mild-mannered poster we have, was taken to task for disagreeing with management on the pick. I stand by my response there that was bumped. If we are not allowed to disagree with management, vent our frustrations and have spirited discussions with other posters about it all, what exactly is the point of all this?

What is true about life in general is also true in this (or any) discussion forum. There are three sides to every story/argument. A good number of people gravitate towards A or Z based on their level of optimism or pessimism, but the third option (somewhere along the path from B to Y) is almost always the truth. I think anyone who views most arguments through this lens, in a discussion forum and in life, is doing themselves a favor.

 

[Majorityof1]

What is true about life in general is also true in this (or any) discussion forum. There are three sides to every story/argument. A good number of people gravitate towards A or Z based on their level of optimism or pessimism, but the third option (somewhere along the path from B to Y) is almost always the truth. I think anyone who views most arguments through this lens, in a discussion forum and in life, is doing themselves a favor.

I'd say discussion boards amplify what's true about life, and often times the worst parts of it, due to the anonymity of the internet. I do agree that there are THREE sides to every story. Most people say two, but there are definitely three. Like you said, mine, yours and the truth is often in between. To me, it is only through discussion, argument, peeling away exaggerations and falsehoods, and convincing each other of some merits of the other side that both can move closer to the truth. However, as in life and more often here, arguments that move away from the topic and stray to the personal can often cause the other person to dig their heels in even more firmly, move further away from the more truthful middle ground. With regard to a couple of posters and at least one issue on here, I am guilty of that. Thank you for the unintentional reminder of what I love about debate and discussion.

 

[Dbrownss]

Preface: Not trying to start an argument here, but just trying to show the flip side.

To some of us who are down on the front-office/coaching, the more positive minded people seem to have just as ridiculous a boiled-down mind-set.

1. Assume the management is infallible and knows what its doing on the basis of them being in a position to do it (Appeal to Authority).
2. Create excuses and/or cite lack of concrete information to explain obvious failures, eg, "Armstrong didn't mess up, we don't know what the offers were for that player that we traded for peanuts."
3. Complain about anyone who is critical of the team or decision making.

I'm all for discussion with people who have a different opinion. I love it. Sometimes I get heated, but with a few exceptions, its not personal. I just like to debate. However, sometimes it seems people who have an opinion contrary to the company line get attacked, not for the content of their opinion, but merely for not towing the line.

For example, someone just claimed Ranksu was not a Blues fan because he is frustrated with management and voices that frustration. Ranksu is someone who is clearly passionate about the team, who gets up in the middle of the night to watch them, yet he is not a fan because he clamors for changes that he thinks will improve the team in the long run? That to me is ridiculous. Now Ranksu is extreme in his approach. However, in another thread, someone just revived the Tage Thompson debate from when he was drafted, Easton, the most articulate and mild-mannered poster we have, was taken to task for disagreeing with management on the pick. I stand by my response there that was bumped. If we are not allowed to disagree with management, vent our frustrations and have spirited discussions with other posters about it all, what exactly is the point of all this?

1. I don't think many feel managment is infallible. It is more realistic to feel they have a better handle on a situation then we do..... they mess up, which should be criticized. Its the certainty in screwing up and trying to destroy the team I can't stand. I feel that if you desire change, you should have an idea as to who you want. Just saying "something else" doesnt fly. As they say, the grass isn't always greener on the other side. I'm on the more positive side of the spectrum...but that doesn't mean I think everything is A'ok. I just don't think you can expect every hole to be filled, especially when its the most coveted position in the sport. A spot that you have to draft 99% of the time.


2 & 3 can be reasonably covered by my thought process in 1.


There's nothing wrong we being down on the team or unhappy with the way things are. Its realistic to feel there may not have been an alternative that was realistic though.

 

[2 Minute Minor]

Preface: Not trying to start an argument here, but just trying to show the flip side.

To some of us who are down on the front-office/coaching, the more positive minded people seem to have just as ridiculous a boiled-down mind-set.

1. Assume the management is infallible and knows what its doing on the basis of them being in a position to do it (Appeal to Authority).
2. Create excuses and/or cite lack of concrete information to explain obvious failures, eg, "Armstrong didn't mess up, we don't know what the offers were for that player that we traded for peanuts."
3. Complain about anyone who is critical of the team or decision making.

I'm all for discussion with people who have a different opinion. I love it. Sometimes I get heated, but with a few exceptions, its not personal. I just like to debate. However, sometimes it seems people who have an opinion contrary to the company line get attacked, not for the content of their opinion, but merely for not towing the line.

For example, someone just claimed Ranksu was not a Blues fan because he is frustrated with management and voices that frustration. Ranksu is someone who is clearly passionate about the team, who gets up in the middle of the night to watch them, yet he is not a fan because he clamors for changes that he thinks will improve the team in the long run? That to me is ridiculous. Now Ranksu is extreme in his approach. However, in another thread, someone just revived the Tage Thompson debate from when he was drafted, Easton, the most articulate and mild-mannered poster we have, was taken to task for disagreeing with management on the pick. I stand by my response there that was bumped. If we are not allowed to disagree with management, vent our frustrations and have spirited discussions with other posters about it all, what exactly is the point of all this?

I appreciate your response, and the reasonable tone. And let me say: Ranksu is a treasure on this forum and second only to Robb may be the most demonstrably dedicated Blues fan on the forum.

Appeal to authority suggests that (for example) I only think Armstrong is likely making a good decision because he is the GM. (How did he get to be the GM if he's not good at it?).

But can't we also point to the evidence of his competencies? Such as managing the salary cap very well (the only bad contract is Lehtera's and its not hideous). And piloting the team to the WCF. We'll see where this year's team ends up. I wouldn't be surprised by a first round ouster or a SCF appearance.

These are outcomes that some would claim happened IN SPITE of the GM.

I DO think that the onus is on us to try and see the logic and reasoning behind his moves. The ultimate measure of the team is winning games, and this Blues team has done very well in that department for a few years now. If we can't assign some responsibility for that to the decision-making players in the front office, then I don't think we're having an honest discussion. Last season, they broke through and started winning some post-season games. Will they build on that? Was it a fluke? How long is the window? Great debatable questions. But I would argue that the basic function of a GM is to put together a team that wins games.

Back to Husso:
There are 3 guys that could be playing in the AHL. But I don't see any of those 3 as being ready for the back-up spot behind Jake Allen. Maybe with a different NHL starter (prime Broudeur) it would be reasonable, but not this year's Blues.

If you told me the choice is keeping one of the 3 in the ECHL or losing one for basically nothing, I'd keep a guy in the ECHL. I think it comes down to this: do you believe Husso needs to be playing on North American sized rinks this year in the best interest of his development, or not? That is arguable.

This whole debate will become just so much hand-wringing as soon as one of the 4 guys ahead of Husso goes down with an injury and a spot in the AHL opens up for him.

 

[Majorityof1]

I appreciate your response, and the reasonable tone. And let me say: Ranksu is a treasure on this forum and second only to Robb may be the most demonstrably dedicated Blues fan on the forum.

Appeal to authority suggests that (for example) I only think Armstrong is likely making a good decision because he is the GM. (How did he get to be the GM if he's not good at it?).

But can't we also point to the evidence of his competencies? Such as managing the salary cap very well (the only bad contract is Lehtera's and its not hideous). And piloting the team to the WCF. We'll see where this year's team ends up. I wouldn't be surprised by a first round ouster or a SCF appearance.

These are outcomes that some would claim happened IN SPITE of the GM.

I DO think that the onus is on us to try and see the logic and reasoning behind his moves. The ultimate measure of the team is winning games, and this Blues team has done very well in that department for a few years now. If we can't assign some responsibility for that to the decision-making players in the front office, then I don't think we're having an honest discussion. Last season, they broke through and started winning some post-season games. Will they build on that? Was it a fluke? How long is the window? Great debatable questions. But I would argue that the basic function of a GM is to put together a team that wins games.

Back to Husso:
There are 3 guys that could be playing in the AHL. But I don't see any of those 3 as being ready for the back-up spot behind Jake Allen. Maybe with a different NHL starter (prime Broudeur) it would be reasonable, but not this year's Blues.

If you told me the choice is keeping one of the 3 in the ECHL or losing one for basically nothing, I'd keep a guy in the ECHL. I think it comes down to this: do you believe Husso needs to be playing on North American sized rinks this year in the best interest of his development, or not? That is arguable.

This whole debate will become just so much hand-wringing as soon as one of the 4 guys ahead of Husso goes down with an injury and a spot in the AHL opens up for him.

I agree that Armstrong has been competent at a great many things. He, and Hitch, have put us in a very good position right now. However, there is a serious question if they can put us over. Was last season a fluke or are they now on the right path? That is debatable. If we believe it is a fluke and Armstrong/Hitch is not the ones to put us over, then there is nothing wrong with saying "Thank you for your many positive contributions, we feel someone else is more suited for the next step." Hockey is a business, and sometimes a rough one.

As for Husso, I think people's complaining is more frustration with getting into the situation than anything. There are no good solutions. None of the 3 goalies deserve to be in the ECHL. It would suck to trade an asset away just to make room for Husso. We are talking the lesser of evils here. Some of the blame stems from trading for Copley in the first place. Those of us who don't think he will amount to much were confused as to why he was added to the Oshie deal. On a pure value perspective with our playoff performance hindsight taken out of the equation, Oshie was much more valuable than Brouwer. Copley was a very confusing and arguably unnecessary balance to that deal. Had we gotten a better pick or forward prospect instead, we would not be in this situation and would have an arguably better asset.

For me, the best of the bad options is whatever gives Husso the most support he can have. Binnington has clearly regressed, and no longer looks to be on track for a strong NHL career. Copley is doing alright in the AHL, but is not trusted to be called up. Binnie was the one game call-up when Jake got injured in October, and the last goalie sent down at training camp. Copley or Binnington could still turn into a solid NHL goalie given time. But I'd rather play the percentages. I feel that is giving as much coaching, support and play time as possible to Husso. But the whole thing just exacerbates my frustration with getting Copley from that trade in the first place.

 

[Vladys Gumption]

Why assume he won't? And why lambast the team based on that assumption, based on almost no information except pessimistic expectations of management? Why get worked up over it one way or the other when we don't know?

The operating procedure here seems to boil down to:
1) Assume the front office is incompetent.
2) Project incompetent decisions that haven't even happened yet.
3) Worry and complain about things that haven't happened.

I think we all want to see Husso's bright future realized. But playing in the ECHL isn't the end of the world, and can reasonably fit into a sensible plan for his development. There ARE positives.

Being in the ECHL isn't the end of the world, but him not having regular access to a goaltending coach is inexcusable.

 

[Ranksu]

What about Fitzpatrick and Opilka? I hope they make some decision after this season Copley vs. Binnington.

 

[Majorityof1]

What about Fitzpatrick and Opilka? I hope they make some decision after this season Copley vs. Binnington.

I believe we have 2 seasons before we need to find a place for Fitzpatrick. Copley/Binnington will either be an NHL back-up or gone by then. I can't see us keeping a 26/27 year old career AHLer. Opilka is having a rough season for Kitchener this year. 8 games, 4+ GAA, .868. If he doesn't turn it around, we may just let him go. Fitzpatrick's stats aren't great, but that's to be expected with his team's defense. I would be more comfortable with either of those two in the ECHL as well. I don't think they have quiet the potential Husso does. Plus they have both played the North American game in juniors so there is less transition.

 

[MortiestOfMortys]

What about Fitzpatrick and Opilka? I hope they make some decision after this season Copley vs. Binnington.

Keep them in juniors as long as humanly possible

 

[Edgar Carrow]

Why assume he won't? And why lambast the team based on that assumption, based on almost no information except pessimistic expectations of management? Why get worked up over it one way or the other when we don't know?

The operating procedure here seems to boil down to:
1) Assume the front office is incompetent.
2) Project incompetent decisions that haven't even happened yet.
3) Worry and complain about things that haven't happened.

I think we all want to see Husso's bright future realized. But playing in the ECHL isn't the end of the world, and can reasonably fit into a sensible plan for his development. There ARE positives.

Ask them.

 

[MissouriMook]

Keep them in juniors as long as humanly possible

Exactly. Both are having poor seasons statistically but both also are or have been hurt. I seem to remember Fitzpatrick having a string of awful games in November before missing 3 weeks with an injury and playing better upon return. I know Opilka had hip surgery in the offseason and his poor start may be attributable to returning to soon, having a recurrence of the problem, or an unrelated injury. He only has 8 starts this season, so it is a small sample size as well. Writing off any 18-19 year old goalie prospect when they still have plenty of junior time to be had, and have shown promising play in the past, seems foolish.

 

[Celtic Note]

Assuming the Blues didn't ignore Moose's trade request, what do you think they should have done for this season?

The best bet was to find a seasoned vet that once was a starter, but is better suited as a back up at this point in their career. Or a career journeyman. Or a young guy with some upside but likely a backup.

In other words a strong backup to 1B that could handle some games.

 

[2 Minute Minor]

The best bet was to find a seasoned vet that once was a starter, but is better suited as a back up at this point in their career. Or a career journeyman. Or a young guy with some upside but likely a backup.

In other words a strong backup to 1B that could handle some games.

How does Hutton not fit that description? He shouldered a stretch as the starter due to injury and did great, not too long ago. There was every reason to expect him to be able to perform like that again.

 

[Renard]

Who can predict how a goaltending prospect will turn out? Its such a high stress position, which plenty of chances for injury and loss of confidence, that it just seems to be a question of having as many prospects as possible and hope you luck out on one.

I well remember the hoopla over Halak's play for the first twelve games of his time in St. Louis. Then came a debacle in Columbus (Halak got chased early and Oshie broke his ankle) and Halak became an up and down guy, and the team seemed to lose its confidence in him. Elliott became the number one guy, after a while, and played in the All-Star game, which surely no one, including management or the fan base, anticipated.

Who would have expected Tim Thomas to become an NHL starter, and an outstanding one at that, so late in his career?

It all seems like educated guesswork to me.

 

[Ranksu]

Who can predict how a goaltending prospect will turn out? Its such a high stress position, which plenty of chances for injury and loss of confidence, that it just seems to be a question of having as many prospects as possible and hope you luck out on one.

I well remember the hoopla over Halak's play for the first twelve games of his time in St. Louis. Then came a debacle in Columbus (Halak got chased early and Oshie broke his ankle) and Halak became an up and down guy, and the team seemed to lose its confidence in him. Elliott became the number one guy, after a while, and played in the All-Star game, which surely no one, including management or the fan base, anticipated.

Who would have expected Tim Thomas to become an NHL starter, and an outstanding one at that, so late in his career?

It all seems like educated guesswork to me.

Bolded: What if game I hate it. We can debate maybe Copley who'll turn 25-years old next month could become next Tim Thomas, but are the odds for it?

I see it that you priorize your prospects. Btw doesn any other team hold three goaltender prospect under they NHL team?

OT: I still heavily criticize our GM Doug Armstrong about holding his assets too long and not make right time decisions and right moves. This isn't just Copley/Binnington case.

 

[Celtic Note]

How does Hutton not fit that description? He shouldered a stretch as the starter due to injury and did great, not too long ago. There was every reason to expect him to be able to perform like that again.

Hutton had a hot stretch, but before that season he looked incredibly poor. There are so many holes in his game that were masked by that Nashville D. He also only played 17 games last year even when Rinne looked aweful. Their coaching staff didn't have much faith in the guy and for good reason IMO.

 

[Robb_K]

Hutton had a hot stretch, but before that season he looked incredibly poor. There are so many holes in his game that were masked by that Nashville D. He also only played 17 games last year even when Rinne looked aweful. Their coaching staff didn't have much faith in the guy and for good reason IMO.

I agree. I think that if Allen gets hurt for a long period, The Blues would be in trouble if the need to depend upon Hutton for more than a game here or there.

 

[Stealth JD]

I honestly think Copley could come up and perform as well as Hutton, at least. Not a huge fan of Hutton's game this year.