Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes
Sign in to follow this  
LakeLivin

2017 Traverse City Prospects Tourney

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, gocanes0506 said:

I don't believe we have drafted a number 1 goalie prospect over the past few years.  Has hockey had big time goalie prospects over the last 6 years?  Anyway, I believe we are hoping they develop into 1b guys.  It would be the only reason you get a decent starter and give him a 4 year deal (disclaimer: im saying decent because we have no idea what kind of starter he'll be).  

 

 

 

The thing about drafting goalies is that a team has almost as good a shot at drafting a starter in a later round than trying to get a top prospect in the first round.  I posted something in the goalie thread about that a while back.  Altshuler was semi well touted, but he collected his lovely fruit basket and left without making a mark.  Nedj looked good for a bit, and Booth has been good except for his unscheduled nap in game 3 in this tournament.  I think it's too early to tell on the guys in the system. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, coastal_caniac said:

Fleury is smooth and looks ready for a shot.

I agree, but I will pick one small nit: In the Dzone late in the Rags game, he cross-checked a guy in the back along the boards. The Rags player was in a puck battle with another Cane, and this was Fleury's attempt to distract him so his teammate could come away with the puck. But the guy went down and got the call, letting them begin what could have been 3-plus minutes of 6 v 4 to end the game, because they also pulled their keeper. There was absolutely no reason for Fleury to do it; his team was up by a handful, and it was just a matter of getting it into the barn. He could have hipped him or just held position in case the guy won the puck. But, I figured, no harm, no foul.

 

Then he did it again, late, last night--in the Ozone. Fleury was at the point and there was a puck battle in front of him, along the boards, and he cross-checked the guy in the back. He (fortunately) stayed on his feet, or it would have been called again; it was no gentle nudge. 

 

Like I said, seemingly small thing. But why do it at all? You're up and it's late, and dumb penalties can turn games around. When he did it again last night, that was my first thought: stupid. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, super_dave_1 said:

 

The thing about drafting goalies is that a team has almost as good a shot at drafting a starter in a later round than trying to get a top prospect in the first round.  I posted something in the goalie thread about that a while back.  Altshuler was semi well touted, but he collected his lovely fruit basket and left without making a mark.  Nedj looked good for a bit, and Booth has been good except for his unscheduled nap in game 3 in this tournament.  I think it's too early to tell on the guys in the system. 

 

Yeah, Tulsky even had an article about that a couple of years before we hired him.  I did think that we'd buy a couple more yute goalie raffle tickets with a couple of our many later draft picks this year, though, especially since we couldn't spend them as part of a package for another top line forward.

Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, remkin said:

Wow 13 seconds in Roy got rocked with a huge hit mid blue line offensive zone. Called it a clean hit, but it was not the kind of hit you usually see. Guy skated all the way up to the blueline from the back and hit him open ice. Roy out so far.

 

One of things that drives me bat s crazy is when a clean hit is delivered that rocks the other guy to his roots and someone immediately from his team comes in and fights the guy who laid a clean hit. Without needing a ref to make the call players know clean from dirty and fighting a guy who just played the game the way its taught by laying a clean rocking check shouldn't have to look forward to that nonsense. That should be an auto two minutes instigator penalty for the guy that immediately fights the guy who layed the check. The guy who gets nailed? Keep you head up its a big boys game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, raleighcaniac said:

 

That should be an auto two minutes instigator penalty for the guy that immediately fights the guy who layed the check.

 

Ah, that's pretty much how it works in the NHL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, raleighcaniac said:

... players know clean from dirty and fighting a guy who just played the game the way its taught by laying a clean rocking check shouldn't have to look forward to that nonsense...

 

And why not? Players don't always know exactly what happened and with the adrenalin pumping they react to one of their team mates laid out, refs blowing the whistle and the crowd going nuts. A lot of the times the same goes for the refs too, just blowing the play dead because of an injured player. That still doesn't mean they will make the right call or make a call at all. What ticks me off more is not having enough players on the team who can be counted on taking exception with someone hurting a team mate, clean hit or not.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, raleighcaniac said:

 

One of things that drives me bat s crazy is when a clean hit is delivered that rocks the other guy to his roots and someone immediately from his team comes in and fights the guy who laid a clean hit. Without needing a ref to make the call players know clean from dirty and fighting a guy who just played the game the way its taught by laying a clean rocking check shouldn't have to look forward to that nonsense. That should be an auto two minutes instigator penalty for the guy that immediately fights the guy who layed the check. The guy who gets nailed? Keep you head up its a big boys game.

This is not necessarily directed at you rc, but it seems this board vacillates on the issue of "team toughness" as much as any other topic discussed. To the vast majority of us, and I include myself here, the moniker of "candy canes" is a tremendous sore spot, and we constantly call out the players for not coming to the aid of their teammates.

 

Then we hear arguments like you've just put forth citing this as a "clean rocking check". Whaler has weighed in while I was typing and I was about to comment similarly, that playing at those speeds, and with emotions heightened, as opposed to easy chair quarterbacking, I'm not sure how these youngsters should be able to rationalize these frequent situations, particularly if for a split second, their attention is diverted.

 

IMHO, I'd rather they be the aggressor than being labelled as an "easy team to play".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Whaler1 said:

 

And why not? Players don't always know exactly what happened and with the adrenalin pumping they react to one of their team mates laid out, refs blowing the whistle and the crowd going nuts. A lot of the times the same goes for the refs too, just blowing the play dead because of an injured player. That still doesn't mean they will make the right call or make a call at all. What ticks me off more is not having enough players on the team who can be counted on taking exception with someone hurting a team mate, clean hit or not.

 

Exactly Whaler - people here complain about no physicality or that nobody stands up for their team mates, then when somebody stands up and takes exception to a hit, people complain that the guy should not have stood up for their team mate.  You just can't please some people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best word I can think of for that hit is "inappropriate". I've watched two years of this tournament, and it just isn't a played like NHL playoff games. There is physicality, but not a lot and almost all of it on the boards. Roy was just over the blueline and their guy came from the back end skating quite a ways and laid Roy out with a pretty high open ice hit, which is saying something since Roy is 6'5". Roy left and never came back. Often a concussion. I did not like that hit, legal or not, because the player is not anticipating that kind of hit in this tourney.

 

In the context of this tournament this was not a hockey play. This was a deliberate statement hit, 13 seconds in. A bit goonish to me, even if it didn't violate the letter of the law. This kid was trying to make a statement with that hit, and just taking it, is exactly what most members on here have indeed lamented for years. The response was appropriate.

 

Now here's my down and dirty reaction. The response was appropriate, but utterly ineffective. Our guy never laid a glove on him, and that same kid kept hitting everyone for the rest of the game.  My question is this. Why not run him later? Big clean open ice hits every time we got the chance? Make him wonder all game, who's going to hit him? I know we don't want to come off our game, but we had a couple of chances. No we get into a wrestle - dance spin for a few seconds, take a penalty, and the guy plays the rest of the game like nothing happens, and we lose Roy for the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the risk of seemingly piling on RC, I agree with the prior three posts--but I also agree with RC's. He is absolutely right that there is nothing wrong with a clean open-ice hit. He is also right that if you're playing that this level with your head down, someone will make you pay. But even with that being the case, for me it comes down to targeting.

 

I didn't see the hit on Roy (that'll teach me to tune in late), so I don't know the details. But I will say this, whether or not a player's head is down, his head is never an okay target (and to be clear, I'm not saying RC thinks it is; he specifically said he doesn't like it when players giving clean hits are targeted after the fact).

 

But it's on that larger point of RC's that we differ. As far as I'm concerned, if a player is hitting everything that moves, as Warner was, he should expect to get it back. Whether that is via a challenge to drop the mitts or with clean hits makes no difference. Warner targeted our top center right out of the gate, and that warrants - demands - a response. I'd prefer somebody knock him on his keester, but if somebody prefers fighting, okay. Either way, physicality must be matched, and the prospects did that last night. And - most important - they won the game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Whaler1 said:

 

And why not? Players don't always know exactly what happened and with the adrenalin pumping they react to one of their team mates laid out, refs blowing the whistle and the crowd going nuts. A lot of the times the same goes for the refs too, just blowing the play dead because of an injured player. That still doesn't mean they will make the right call or make a call at all. What ticks me off more is not having enough players on the team who can be counted on taking exception with someone hurting a team mate, clean hit or not.

 

That's a natural, emotional response when it's one of our players that got laid out with a clean hit.  But when we make a clean hit and the other team retaliates, is everyone actually ok with that?  What happens if a Skinner or Crosby ends up with a career ending head injury due to retaliation for a clean hit?

 

Riffing off of top's post, given everything we're learning about head injuries, I'm convinced that at some point the NHL is going to have to change the culture to better protect players from head trauma, purely from a liability perspective.  And I'm guessing that one of the easiest liability target points will be fighting.  I'm almost surprised that we haven't already seen lawsuits from former players, but is anyone in doubt that, given the NHLs at best lukewarm approach to player safety, they'll start to come, and for very large amounts? 

 

I'm not saying you don't stand up for your teammates, but I'm with rem as far as the best way to do it.  I thought last seasons Canes were better than the year before, and I wouldn't mind seeing even more improvement on that front.   And I believe that if the NHL would appropriately deal with dangerous hits there would be less need for teams to have to try to police them on their own.  One thing I'd like to see as soon as possible is for refs to review questionable hits after the next stoppage during the game and administering severe penalties as appropriate at that time, regardless of whether a penalty was originally called on the play of not, similar to what they do in basketball.  Doesn't do your team any good for a violator to be penalized against other teams in future games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, Warner IMO didn't target a top player, he saw an opportunity to hammer a guy,  a guy crossing the middle of the ice with his head down like Scott Stevens laid out many in his day. Warner is a big lad but didn't leave his feet or come in elbow high etc. Just a solid check is what I saw. I guess if you want to open up the argument to sticking up for a teammate then that teammate needs to be all in and Smallman wasn't. Smallman went after Warner and 3 seconds later Smallman's flat on his back with Warner on top of him and if the refs hadn't stepped would have beat the crap out of Smallman. Warner 2 Canes 0. Its not team toughness when you lose sticking up for a teammate.  Warner came away the victor showing his coaches what he's got.

 

To the extent guys believe in this specific type of team toughness which I don't subscribe to, fighting a guy who just made a solid crunching check, what happens when a kid like Slavin or Pesce who don't look to have a dirty bone their body lays someone out like that? Now they've got to fight which is not their game and because of their clean check their now in the box for 5 minutes after possibly have the bejeez beat out of them? Thats penalizing top players who play the game clean.  Thats why for players who immediately retaliate make it a 4 minute instigator penalty on top of the 5 for fighting. Don't forget, they can always deal with it later in the game like the next shift the dirty hitter is out on if it was a dirty hit - that way you get to put out on the ice your most willing player, not a Smallman who looked like, well, a small man.

 

 

Edited by raleighcaniac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, LakeLivin said:

What happens if a Skinner or Crosby ends up with a career ending head injury due to retaliation for a clean hit?

 

 

If it's Skinner, Hurricane fans get upset but that's the end of it.  If it's Crosby, the player who hit him is suspended for half the season and the NHL makes a rule change.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally have no issues with players policing the games by letting it be known that there will be a price to pay for taking liberties with players.  An un-justified hit on a vulnerable player may not be a penalty in the refs' eyes, but retaliation may make that guy pull up next time.  I hate the instigator rule because it lets weasel players get in cheap shots with little downside.  The game has changed and there isn't nearly the amount of that, but it is still part of the game.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the Traverse City Tourney is hockey, but it isn't NHL hockey and the level of physicality in this tournament pales in comparison.  I've watched for 3 years, and with the advent of Fox Sports Go I was able to watch a good many more of the games of other teams.  You normally don't see any bone crushing hits or checks.  Seems to me folks are trying to equate this particular play in a prospects tournament with what happens in the NHL.  It's just not the same.

 

With that said, I thought Roy was clearly targeted given the length of the ice that was traveled to make the hit.  The retaliation didn't amount to much in the end, but for those of you who obviously aren't familiar with Smallman, that kid is known to lay down on people. So, it's not like he was out of his realm.

 

The point is, hits like that are rare, but they happen, and I get that.  I also get that sometimes players take exception, and there are alternative ways to deal with it.  I had no problem with the reaction.

 

 

Edited by coastal_caniac
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, super_dave_1 said:

I personally have no issues with players policing the games by letting it be known that there will be a price to pay for taking liberties with players.  An un-justified hit on a vulnerable player may not be a penalty in the refs' eyes, but retaliation may make that guy pull up next time.  I hate the instigator rule because it lets weasel players get in cheap shots with little downside.  The game has changed and there isn't nearly the amount of that, but it is still part of the game.

 

You're a basketball guy, what do you think about something similar to NHL in game review and punishment for the hockey equivalent of flagrant fouls like they do in an NCAA game?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, raleighcaniac said:

So, Warner IMO didn't target a top player, he saw an opportunity to hammer a guy,  a guy crossing the middle of the ice with his head down like Scott Stevens laid out many in his day. Warner is a big lad but didn't leave his feet or come in elbow high etc. Just a solid check is what I saw. I guess if you want to open up the argument to sticking up for a teammate then that teammate needs to be all in and Smallman wasn't. Smallman went after Warner and 3 seconds later Smallman's flat on his back with Warner on top of him and if the refs hadn't stepped would have beat the crap out of Smallman. Warner 2 Canes 0. Its not team toughness when you lose sticking up for a teammate.  Warner came away the victor showing his coaches what he's got.

 

To the extent guys believe in this specific type of team toughness which I don't subscribe to, fighting a guy who just made a solid crunching check, what happens when a kid like Slavin or Pesce who don't look to have a dirty bone their body lays someone out like that? Now they've got to fight which is not their game and because of their clean check their now in the box for 5 minutes after possibly have the bejeez beat out of them? Thats penalizing top players who play the game clean.  Thats why for players who immediately retaliate make it a 4 minute instigator penalty on top of the 5 for fighting. Don't forget, they can always deal with it later in the game like the next shift the dirty hitter is out on if it was a dirty hit - that way you get to put out on the ice your most willing player, not a Smallman who looked like, well, a small man.

I don't disagree with any of this. You're right on all counts. But the point I'm making is this: As long as you respond, even if you lose that battle as Smallman did, you've stood up as a teammate.

 

We can never know if Warner targeted Roy because he's one of our top players or because he had his head down or because Warner just wants to make an impression in camp. But I'm less interested in his reasons for the hit than I am in the fact that there was a response from the Canes. That alone is just so bizarro-world different from even two years ago that it suggests cohesion--and the fact that Warner may have won the battle but that his team still lost the war suggests that the team was more focused on what really mattered, after a very bad loss one night before.

 

Shorter: Warner tried to throw the team off its game. Didn't work.

 

Edited by top-shelf-1
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, top-shelf-1 said:

Oh, but we have.

 

Thanks, doesn't surprise me.  One additional factor going forward w.r.t. head injuries is plausible deniability.  NHL will undoubtedly argue that no one knew the long term effects of hits to the head when it comes to past cases.  They won't be able to make that case going forward, so the longer they go without aggressively addressing the issue, the more they open themselves up to liability issues, imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, raleighcaniac said:

Re Concussions: Bettman = Goodell

Yeah, except Bettman is a lawyer and should know better. Goodell is an economist, so he can pretend not to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LakeLivin said:

 

You're a basketball guy, what do you think about something similar to NHL in game review and punishment for the hockey equivalent of flagrant fouls like they do in an NCAA game?   

 

I think review should be expanded some.  All questionable hits, major penalties, and goalie interference should be reviewable.  They need to probably eliminate reviewing for offsides before a goal.  

 

That still doesn't change my mind on hockey players coming to the defense of their team mates under the current rules and officiating

 

 

 

Edited by super_dave_1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, super_dave_1 said:

 

I think review should be expanded some.  All questionable hits, major penalties, and goalie interference should be reviewable.  They need to probably eliminate reviewing for offsides before a goal.  

 

That still doesn't change my mind on hockey players coming to the defense of their team mates under the current rules and officiating

 

 

 

 

This makes sense to get the call right but I hate the reviews. I hate the coaches challenge and I hate the coaches timeout. I dislike anything that slows down the game or can change the flow or momentum, 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, OBXer said:

 

This makes sense to get the call right but I hate the reviews. I hate the coaches challenge and I hate the coaches timeout. I dislike anything that slows down the game or can change the flow or momentum, 

 

The offsides thing is almost always a time wasting, extended timeout, and why I say eliminate it.  If they could review questionable hits, it may take less time than the ensuing melee would take if it eliminated some retaliation.  Major penalties, although rare, should be automatically reviewed because it can have such a big impact and it needs to be right.  They are already reviewing goals, so goalie interference reviews wouldn't be much of a change.

 

Do away with the offsides challenge, and it's probably a break even on time.

 

edit: I forgot that the offsides challenge rule is now changed to result in a minor penalty for a failed challenge.

 

https://www.sbnation.com/nhl/2017/9/6/16264120/nhl-offside-challenge-rule-change

Edited by super_dave_1
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...