Morgan Rielly
- Thread starter Redleaf
- Start date
Burning a year on Rielly's entry-level deal is dumb.
The other stupid thing about Burke (other than not doing long-term contracts purportedly for the sake of "principle") was this idea that the coach gets to choose the team. The idea that the coach's short-term planning might dominate the GM's responsibility for long-term planning is idiotic.
The other stupid thing about Burke (other than not doing long-term contracts purportedly for the sake of "principle") was this idea that the coach gets to choose the team. The idea that the coach's short-term planning might dominate the GM's responsibility for long-term planning is idiotic.
bustaheims
Active member
princedpw said:
5 games wouldn't burn a year off his deal.
princedpw said:
Burke didn't burn a year on Rielly. ELC doesn't kick in until the player leaves jr. afaik. Its not unusual practice to sign your first round pick to an ELC as far as I understand it. He'd also have to play 5 games for the deal to kick in.
I think you'd be crazy to think that Burke is that much of an idiot. To think he would give free reign to a coach who believes he is getting canned is convoluted logic when Burke was the one who'd be firing the coach.
The coach makes an honest recommendation that the player can suit up and have success. You're basically saying Burke is prone to being lied to, which I find that hard to believe, especially with Burke being a Harvard lawyer.
Bender said:
(and @Busta): Sorry -- I was quite unclear. That's not what I meant at all.
-- I understand signing an ELC doesn't burn a year until you begin playing (for the 5-, or previously, 10-game window). I don't think it was a bad call to sign him to an ELC, like many other top draft picks.
-- I also did not mean to imply that a coach might lie to the GM or mislead the GM in any way.
-- What I meant was that, in general, for a GM to give a coach complete, unquestioned control over who stays with the team in the short term and who doesn't, independent of the longer-term consequences with regard to contract status, cap considerations and/or player skill development is just not sensible.
It is the GM's job to manage the long-term growth of the team. It is not a coach's job to manage the long-term growth of the team. It doesn't make sense for the GM to abdicate his responsibilities.
Of course, having said that, it is certainly usually the case that coach and GM decisions will coincide. But by claiming that "the coach picks the team" one is saying that if coach and GM decisions do not coincide then the GM will go with the coach despite possible negative longer term consequences -- which the GM should be responsible for. Anyway, that's the thing that really bugs me -- I can't really understand why it is rational to let the coach decide when the coach doesn't have the same longer-term responsibilities that the GM has.
============
In the specific case of Rielly:
-- as far as I am aware, almost no NHL 18-year-old defensemen have had a really significant impact on their teams. Here's a list of NHL defensemen who played at 18 (perhaps to qualify, you must end the season still 18 or something ... I'm not sure how the list was constructed or how accurate it is). There are only 72:
http://www.quanthockey.com/nhl/player-age/18-year-old-nhl-defensemen.html
Bobby Orr certainly did well at 18. I guess I don't have my hopes that high for Reilly.
-- I'm skeptical you can actually tell how well a rookie will do over a full (or in this case half) season with a 5-day training camp and 5-game evaluation ... which will be compounded by the layoff and bizarre beginning to the season with some veterans possibly working their way in to game shape. To be honest, I'm skeptical how well you can evaluate a rookie and predict his future year-long performance even in a normal training camp.
-- I know of no evidence that suggests staying a year in junior will harm a defenseman's development. Indeed, there are so many defensemen, including all stars, who do not play in the NHL at 18 that it is very hard to imagine that it has a significant negative impact.
-- The Leafs have quite a few offensive defensemen (Phaneuf, Liles, Gardiner, Franson, Kostka) and that if anything, Reilly would be mostly likely to bring offense (and be deficient defensively) and given the historically tiny role played by 18-year-old NHL defensemen, it seems hard to believe that bringing him up is actually going to help in a significant way, even if he looks like he initially might be incrementally better than our 5th or 6th defenseman who might currently be a little out of shape... whoever that might be.
princedpw said:
Oh yeah, I agree with every point there. Rielly probably isn't ready and in that sense I don't want him to make the team this year.
That being said, if he's ready he's ready, plain and simple. I don't think holding a player back in junior if the assessment is made that his development is better suited at the NHL level makes sense.
Basically, I'll trust the coaching staff on this one, but in Rielly's case, the fact that he was out for a long time with injury last year and didn't look as dynamic as he could've been at the WJC indicate to me that he should ride out the year in Moose Jaw. This year is kind of a write off anyway to be entirely honest, and we have a glut of back end guys. There's no point in keeping Rielly up anyway if Gardiner's going to be playing once he recovers.
Kin
New member
princedpw said:
I'm curious though, what would evidence like that actually be? Because each player is inherently different there's no real evidence as to why it is any one prospect succeeds and another fails. The list of defensemen who made their debuts at 18 also has a ton of players who went on to very solid NHL careers, even all-stars and HOF like careers, enough that there's nothing that can really be drawn from it about development either. A list of defensemen who debuted at 19 or 21 or 22 would probably be roughly similar. Lots of players, some good ones, a few great ones and some who never amounted to anything.
So if your point is that based on that list Rielly is unlikely to make a huge difference to the Leafs this year and so keeping him down saves a year on his ELC, I agree. If it's that keeping Rielly down a year is the best thing for his development, I don't think there's a way to know.
Zee
Active member
Bender said:
Rielly wasn't affected by the lockout and he could still play in games that mattered so I would assume he'd be in better shape than a lot of other players in camp. Time will tell how he holds up, but I assume he gets 5 games and back to junior which is the sensible thing to do for his development.
Bender said:
I'm on the fence as to whether or not I want Rielly to stay, but this is something that'll make me sleep easy if he does. He isn't really somebody who desperately needed to hit the gym after being drafted, he has NHL-ready size.
13th fan
New member
If Morgan goes back to Moose Jaw , so be it , won't lose a ounce of sleep over it, what ever is best for his development , but I like to see what this kid has playing in the 5 games his aloud before he is return to the minors.Nothing like watching a high draft pick if he will dazzle or frazzle you
Nik Pollock said:
The answer, in a nutshell, is that the evidence would be statistical. If one did some math and one had a large enough sample size one might (or might not) be able to determine a trend one way or another. I understand gathering such evidence may be tricky.
So if your point is that based on that list Rielly is unlikely to make a huge difference to the Leafs this year and so keeping him down saves a year on his ELC, I agree.
[\quote]
That was my point.
I agree there too -- we don't know.
Apparently, I was still pretty unclear.
maplesyrup
New member
I'd prefer not to burn the year on the contract but if he's ready, fine. Carlyle had no issues with keeping Fowler up IIRC... and all Fowler did was put up 40 pts in his rookie season.