The Official New England Ice Hockey DBoard
Click Here to Visit Our Facebook Page
Let's see how long this thread can stay above the usual silliness.
With the Senators coming to town tonight, it got me thinking about choices players make.
Sure, which team NHL players get drafted by is out of their control. But, ELCs are 2 - 3 years. Then you start having choices (limited, but still a choice).
Is it better to play meaningful minutes for a historically bad team, like the Senators, or be in and out of the lineup (or in the minors) on a really good one, like the Bruins?
Most of the players on Ottawa wouldn't be at the NHL level for the Bruins. The prospects would still be learning the pro game in the AHL. Or still in Major Junior. Or still in college. Even their All Star, Chabot's defensive lapses probably would limit his minutes here. Tkachuk would still be at BU (IMO). Well, given the state of BU, maybe just signing now.
Instead, they are on a historically bad team - but - in the NHL. They are basically learning their craft at the highest level of the sport. If you haven't been following that tire fire, read this Twitter thread (or just read it because it's incredible). https://twitter.com/ryanclassic/status/1101579240250564608
So, is your kid better off on bad team in a good Tier III junior league like the EHL, where losing on a nightly basis is almost a foregone conclusion, or a bubble player on a top team in the same league?
Good EHL team or healthy scratch most nights on a NAHL team?
Bad D-III college team playing nightly, or good D-III team?
Good D-III team getting top 6 / top 4 minutes or a practice player on a D-I team?
Curious to hear opinions.
Funny, I’m wearing them now!
Your whole premise that ottawa being in last place means none of those players would be in the NHL shows how little you know. The Bruins would take Tkachuck over a number of their guys right now. 36 points and you say he would still be at BU. Dope.
Yes the decision was him or marshmont. Sure
I think you answered your own question, he came out because he was assured of playing time. I don't know a player who wouldn't prefer to be on the ice vs watching.
No one is assured anything. They are given an opportunity. If Tkachuk didin't produce he'd be in the AHL, much like many of the Bruins prospects who are sent down.
Back to the initial question...I would say playing is preferred. You only get better by playing, and you only have so many years of peak physical ability. If you are good enough at the lower level, you should be able to turn heads and earn an opportunity to move up. But need to be on the ice to showcase your talents.
At the risk of meandering down that rabbit hole, this reminds me of the EHF/E9 debate...third liner EHF elite or top liner E9, which is better (my son is on the younger end of midgets, so fresh in my mind). As above, I think maximizing playing time is the best play.