Remembering Edina Class of 2012

The Latest 400 or so Topics

Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)

bafata88
Posts: 105
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 8:12 pm

Remembering Edina Class of 2012

Post by bafata88 » Sat Mar 09, 2013 10:02 pm

Edina's team this season was loaded with high end skilled players and incredible depth that included a senior class with a lot of varsity experience. And as I've mentioned before, this season's team was pretty much set two years ago when the coaching staff made the somewhat unprecedented move of giving up completely on the Class of 2012 when those players were juniors. Even though many of the Class of 2012 made the varsity team as juniors or eventually played significant varsity minutes, the coaches dumped them all [but for one skater and the one goalie]. Arguably, Giles sacrificed the potential success of the past two seasons to load this year's team.

It worked. Even though they got to the championship game with a little luck [Jefferson section game], this team was destined to win it all. They were just too good and too deep. And well coached. And I would even place them pretty high up on the list of the best teams coached by Giles.

But I hope that people remember that the seeds of this great championship team were planted two years ago [maybe even before that] when some very good hockey players were tossed aside and denied an opportunity to experience the thrill of playing in the state tournament.

Again, before you all rip on me, I am saying loud and clear, this year's Edina team is a great champion team and these players deserve their championship. But some really deserving kids suffered the loss of their dreams in the creation of this year's team.

Remembering the Edina Boys Hockey Class of 2012.

O-townClown
Posts: 4357
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:22 pm
Location: Typical homeboy from the O-Town

Post by O-townClown » Sat Mar 09, 2013 10:17 pm

Bafata, a problem when you are in a community like Edina is that you can be a pretty good hockey player and not make the HS team. The Class of 2012 no doubt met that fate. In my era there were kids cut from Edina that were NHL drafted, played Division I, or had minor pro careers.

Congrats to the Hornets and credit to Coach Giles. He's doing something right despite the detractors.
Be kind. Rewind.

394 West
Posts: 53
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 5:40 pm

Post by 394 West » Sat Mar 09, 2013 10:31 pm

I am sure you can make this comparison at every top ten program.

mulefarm
Posts: 1675
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:01 pm

Re: Remembering Edina Class of 2012

Post by mulefarm » Sat Mar 09, 2013 10:40 pm

bafata88 wrote:Edina's team this season was loaded with high end skilled players and incredible depth that included a senior class with a lot of varsity experience. And as I've mentioned before, this season's team was pretty much set two years ago when the coaching staff made the somewhat unprecedented move of giving up completely on the Class of 2012 when those players were juniors. Even though many of the Class of 2012 made the varsity team as juniors or eventually played significant varsity minutes, the coaches dumped them all [but for one skater and the one goalie]. Arguably, Giles sacrificed the potential success of the past two seasons to load this year's team.

It worked. Even though they got to the championship game with a little luck [Jefferson section game], this team was destined to win it all. They were just too good and too deep. And well coached. And I would even place them pretty high up on the list of the best teams coached by Giles.

But I hope that people remember that the seeds of this great championship team were planted two years ago [maybe even before that] when some very good hockey players were tossed aside and denied an opportunity to experience the thrill of playing in the state tournament.

Again, before you all rip on me, I am saying loud and clear, this year's Edina team is a great champion team and these players deserve their championship. But some really deserving kids suffered the loss of their dreams in the creation of this year's team.

Remembering the Edina Boys Hockey Class of 2012.
We will never know about the class of 2012. I would say they had their chance to impress the coaches their soph and juniors years and they didn't. Seems to me with the success of the last couple of seasons the right kids were chosen. Every player at any school has their dreams crushed when they are cut, not just Edina. Time to move on.

MHL All-Star
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2012 10:45 am

Post by MHL All-Star » Sat Mar 09, 2013 11:19 pm

Well they had a darn good junior gold team, which most kids like more than the dedicated highschool level

sparty
Posts: 92
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 10:57 am
Location: IGH

Post by sparty » Sat Mar 09, 2013 11:42 pm

Congratulations, Edina. The most hockey championships in state history. Edina is like the Yankees...it's so easy to love/hate great teams. Go hornets!

Tigers33
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:06 pm

Post by Tigers33 » Sun Mar 10, 2013 3:02 pm

These players were obviously better then the Class of 2012. Anyone ever thought of that?

Sartellcelly
Posts: 110
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 8:12 am

Blood on the ice

Post by Sartellcelly » Sun Mar 10, 2013 9:13 pm

OK, lemme get this straight:

The 11-12 Hornets tie for the Lake Conference title, give the Hornets their 6th straight section championship, stay among the top-ranked teams all season, then lose by a goal in the final minute to an eventual state champion that smoked its opposition in the title game. And there was widespread agreement that Edina's QF loss to said champion was the best game of the entire tournament.

Yeah, I can see how Edina's coaches used the 11-12 as an "apprenticeship" season ahead of 12-13.

Good grief.

bafata88
Posts: 105
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 8:12 pm

Post by bafata88 » Sun Mar 10, 2013 10:10 pm

You all make generally valid points. It is difficult to argue against the ways things transpired. History is history. It is easy for you to say that the kids that made the team must have been better because they made the team. Well, we all know that is not necessarily the case. And one key point that you good folk are ignoring is that I am talking about players that made the varsity team, they played varsity games and did so quite well. Instead of your smug remonstrations, perhaps the discussion could focus on the mission of high school hockey: is it win at all costs or is it as stated in the MSHSL rules and policies?

And please, let's not go down the tired argument that "the way things are" is a sacred cow that cannot be questioned. Minnesota hockey is incestuous with certain families and players generally on the inside [getting every opportunity and every benefit of the doubt] and most everyone else who is on the outside looking in [and eventually spectating and not playing].

Why is it so offensive to suggest that there should be some loyalty given to players who pay the price, do the work and make the team? Since I am reluctant to be drawn into a discussion of specific examples so as not to disparage certain players, I will leave it at that.

While I have no proof to show, I am quite confident that Edina would've achieved the same success over the last few years if the Class of 12 was not gutted.

Edina is one of the few programs that, every year, has an influx of numerous very good players. Compared to some programs, it is an embarrassment of riches. I know that is the reality there. And kids will get cut. I know that is the reality.

I suppose many of you are too closed minded to even consider the possibility that the mission to win and a practice of treating players like human beings and not pieces of meat [or professional hockey players] can coexist.

So as many of you smugly defend your precious way of doing things, more and more Minnesota kids are leaving high school hockey early and your sport constantly struggles to be bigger than it is.

And it is disappointing that responses to my post are so vitriolic. Read it for goodness sakes. Edina's team this season will be remembered as one of the great champions. And there is a page to the story that I feel should be remembered. Giles placed his notion of winning over showing the most basic loyalty to a group of kids he decided at some point were good enough to don the Edina sweater. Sure it is his prerogative. It does not make it right in the grand scheme of things. So, I would be happy to leave it at that, have this thread locked, and I will never bring it up again. Promise.

keepyourheadup
Posts: 1102
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 2:07 pm

Post by keepyourheadup » Sun Mar 10, 2013 11:10 pm

Probably should be locked! Who has the right or stands on the moral high ground to determine if what transpired was right or wrong. Seems to be a pretty gray area to me. The class of 2012 at Edina, while good, was never on par with the the classes that surrounded them. I don't think there is much disagreement on that, its almost as if you feel they were somehow entitled to their opportunity. Its a problem most other schools would love to have, unfortunately that doesn't make it any easier on those that get cut. If two kids have basically equal ability or value to the team as a coach you should feel compelled to take the younger player. Its a painful process but I don't see where its wrong.

green4
Posts: 1488
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 3:02 am
Location: Edina

Post by green4 » Sun Mar 10, 2013 11:37 pm

I remember this from last year and i will say the same thing, A lot of those kids did not like Giles 1 or 2 of them quit, a few had bad attitude and many were more into partying then they were into playing hockey. Besides that i believe the players were not as good as the younger kids. Did you ever think that over the summer the younger kids worked hard and proved they deserved the spots over the kids who perhaps thought they were already on the team? Those kids were quite good but i think there was a lot of things that led to them not making the team. The one kid though that i thought had a ton of talent was Dietzler and i wish Giles didn't cut him.

Just a little side note but that group after getting cut went to play Junior gold A and that team won state for that level but in the regular season they did lose 3 or 4 games. If you took this 2013 class of seniors and cut them i don't think there is a chance any team comes within 3 goals of them at the Junior Gold A level.

highschoolhockey2323
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 2:10 pm

Post by highschoolhockey2323 » Sun Mar 10, 2013 11:38 pm

I suppose this case deserves one more discussion before it is inevitably forgotten with time. I'll keep it short and simple.

The Edina class of 2012 was indeed a down class, this much is for certain. And has been stated multiple times, Giles essentially gave up about halfway through the 2010-2011 season, sending down multiple players in favor of Sophomores (current senior class that just won a state championship).

With that being said, there WERE seniors who were plain and simple top 12 forwards and top 6 defenseman who were cut by Giles in favor of slightly less talented (at the time) underclassmen. Anybody who denies this is simply being foolish, the favoritism granted to underclassmen in that year's tryout was as clear as day. These same underclassmen would go on to carry the Hornets to a 2013 state title, and we'll see what else lies in store for these young Hornets.

Regardless, the point I'm trying to make is that these seniors at the time were never given their fair crack in high school. They all grew up playing Edina youth hockey year after year, putting in their time and slowly making their way up to the varsity level. These kids deserved better, plain and simple, than to finish their high school careers (and for several of them their competitive hockey careers) playing junior gold hockey.

In the end did the strategy pay off for the Hornets? Big time. Was what happened to the Edina class of 2012 fair in my humble opinion? Absolutely not. The best 20 players should have made the team, plain and simple. Just look at what happened with this year's senior filled Hornet squad.

Having said this, congrats to Curt Giles and the rest of the Hornets. What's done is done. I can only hope that high school coaches in the future will take a look at the Edina senior class of 2012 before making the decision to abandon upper-classmen in favor of building around up and coming talent. Yes the strategy worked, but some great kids had their high school careers cut short. I believe whole-heartedly that Edina would have seen the same success they saw this season had they kept some of those seniors.

Rich Clarke
Posts: 126
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 8:40 am

Post by Rich Clarke » Mon Mar 11, 2013 12:49 pm

Suggesting that the seniors cut were even "better at time" as the freshmen, sophomores, and juniors who took their places is wishful thinking, and frankly delusional. Which players off the players making the 2012 team would you have cut, and with whom would you have replaced him? The 2012 team was very strong, out shooting eventual champion Benilde before losing in the final minute. Replace any of those players and they would have been weaker. And you think Giles should have kept several? Let's face it, even the one senior position player he kept, Nick Leer, wasn't one of the big producers (and I loved Leer for his intensity and hard play). Tell us who you'd cut before generally claiming unfairness.

And, of course, you'd need to identify whom Giles should have kept. He cut juniors Chris Dietzler, Nick Bakke, Mitch Peterson, Franc Hardacker, Brian Baker, and Preston Blanek. Those players combined for three varsity goals in 2011. From the numbers you quote, it appears that you'd not only have kept these kids but have also promoted at least some juniors who had never appeared above JV.

Also look at the reality of doing what you suggest. Giles brought his top four defensemen back from the 2011 team (Reno, Nelson, Hatch, and Anderson). He could have taken Bakke, Peterson, and/or Baker, and may well have had phenom Jack Walker and Tyler Nanne been ready. Do you really think he should have left one on JV, or that the cut players would have been even nearly as effective?

On offense, he brought up Dylan Malmquist, Blake Otterlei, Alec Oesterreich, Miguel Fidler, Cullen Munson, Colin Hurley, and Tim Spicola. I assume you're ok with Hurley and Malmquist, or at least admit that none of the players cut could come close to their 2012 production. Fidler and Munson played typical sophomore roles in 2012 and still had seven goals between them--over twice what the cut players had as juniors in total. Spicola had nine, so I guess the two players that MAYBE didn't pan out in 2012 were Oesterreich and Otterlei, who spent much of the year (and all of 2013) on JV. While I had expected Dietzler and Blanek to make the team (likely in their place), there was never any reason to think they'd be anywhere but at the very far end of the roster.

This year, Hill Murray played an eighth grader, and their top scorer had played since ninth (or eighth) grade. Every coach plays his top players regardless of age. If you think it's that those programs don't have enough seniors to fill a team, you should take another look. And bashing Giles for dropping fringe players in favor of star underclassmen ignores the fact that Edina legend Willard Ikola preached the exact same thing when Edina had so much depth that they could have filled three line ups with seniors. Every year in the 70s and 80s he cut seniors to bring up sophomores (and Freshmen) like John Donnelly, Jay Moore, Peter Hankinson, Tom Nevers, etc. A coach's job is to build a winning program, not to guarantee varsity spots to loyal, dedicated, but less talented players.

Finally, what kind of message are you sending when you suggest that playing junior gold is some type of humiliation? These kids play for the love of the game, and competing at a level more suited to their talents is a lot more fun than riding the bench in hopes of an occasional shift in a blow out. They also will learn soon enough that they'll have to make their own success in life, and more often than not, will advance or fail based on subjectivity. Suggesting that Giles should have chosen his team based on seniority instead of talent isn't doing these kids any favors.

You're right that his decisions in 2013 led to a championship in 2013. But it also led to a far better team in 2012 than he would have had otherwise.

GolfGuy7900
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 1:04 pm

Post by GolfGuy7900 » Mon Mar 11, 2013 1:49 pm

Rich Clarke wrote:Suggesting that the seniors cut were even "better at time" as the freshmen, sophomores, and juniors who took their places is wishful thinking, and frankly delusional. Which players off the players making the 2012 team would you have cut, and with whom would you have replaced him? The 2012 team was very strong, out shooting eventual champion Benilde before losing in the final minute. Replace any of those players and they would have been weaker. And you think Giles should have kept several? Let's face it, even the one senior position player he kept, Nick Leer, wasn't one of the big producers (and I loved Leer for his intensity and hard play). Tell us who you'd cut before generally claiming unfairness.

And, of course, you'd need to identify whom Giles should have kept. He cut juniors Chris Dietzler, Nick Bakke, Mitch Peterson, Franc Hardacker, Brian Baker, and Preston Blanek. Those players combined for three varsity goals in 2011. From the numbers you quote, it appears that you'd not only have kept these kids but have also promoted at least some juniors who had never appeared above JV.

Also look at the reality of doing what you suggest. Giles brought his top four defensemen back from the 2011 team (Reno, Nelson, Hatch, and Anderson). He could have taken Bakke, Peterson, and/or Baker, and may well have had phenom Jack Walker and Tyler Nanne been ready. Do you really think he should have left one on JV, or that the cut players would have been even nearly as effective?

On offense, he brought up Dylan Malmquist, Blake Otterlei, Alec Oesterreich, Miguel Fidler, Cullen Munson, Colin Hurley, and Tim Spicola. I assume you're ok with Hurley and Malmquist, or at least admit that none of the players cut could come close to their 2012 production. Fidler and Munson played typical sophomore roles in 2012 and still had seven goals between them--over twice what the cut players had as juniors in total. Spicola had nine, so I guess the two players that MAYBE didn't pan out in 2012 were Oesterreich and Otterlei, who spent much of the year (and all of 2013) on JV. While I had expected Dietzler and Blanek to make the team (likely in their place), there was never any reason to think they'd be anywhere but at the very far end of the roster.

This year, Hill Murray played an eighth grader, and their top scorer had played since ninth (or eighth) grade. Every coach plays his top players regardless of age. If you think it's that those programs don't have enough seniors to fill a team, you should take another look. And bashing Giles for dropping fringe players in favor of star underclassmen ignores the fact that Edina legend Willard Ikola preached the exact same thing when Edina had so much depth that they could have filled three line ups with seniors. Every year in the 70s and 80s he cut seniors to bring up sophomores (and Freshmen) like John Donnelly, Jay Moore, Peter Hankinson, Tom Nevers, etc. A coach's job is to build a winning program, not to guarantee varsity spots to loyal, dedicated, but less talented players.

Finally, what kind of message are you sending when you suggest that playing junior gold is some type of humiliation? These kids play for the love of the game, and competing at a level more suited to their talents is a lot more fun than riding the bench in hopes of an occasional shift in a blow out. They also will learn soon enough that they'll have to make their own success in life, and more often than not, will advance or fail based on subjectivity. Suggesting that Giles should have chosen his team based on seniority instead of talent isn't doing these kids any favors.

You're right that his decisions in 2013 led to a championship in 2013. But it also led to a far better team in 2012 than he would have had otherwise.
=D>

Hockey102
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:56 pm

Post by Hockey102 » Mon Mar 11, 2013 7:08 pm

Give the credit they win!

bafata88
Posts: 105
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 8:12 pm

Post by bafata88 » Tue Mar 12, 2013 12:10 am

I keep thinking that I should get the last word here. Mr. Clarke, your certainty of opinion is quaint but not totally informed. If anyone watched the Class of 12 their junior year would know that they were perfectly capable of playing at a high level. Remember, they MADE the team. If you can criticize me for suggesting that maybe the Class of 12 should've played over sophs at the time, I am equally justified to criticize your player assessments. You have Giles' final choices on your side, but again, there is plenty to debate on those choices. Any suggestion that Hatch, Anderson, Walsh [and maybe even Jordahl] should've played their soph years is open for debate. Other than Jordahl,the stats of the others over the last three years are telling. The stats of the Class of 12 their junior years don't show much because most ended up playing few varsity games. So those stats are somewhat irrelevant. And you keep referring to the most talented players; not that I will concede that this year's seniors were better than the Class of 12 when this year's seniors were sophs, what happened with picking the "right" players. Edina won the state of championship in 10 with what Giles himself called mutts and jokers. Do you remember guys like Kopp and Jones? They made it to their senior years and they were not necessarily what you would call the most talented.

So for every argument you make, there is a counter argument.

And I will once again emphasize a positive note. This year's state champions were a great team and Giles deserves accolades, for this year.

hockeymannorth
Posts: 187
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 4:33 pm

Post by hockeymannorth » Tue Mar 12, 2013 2:23 am

I think Hill needs to start recuiting again.WAY TO KICK SOME GO HORNETS

Sartellcelly
Posts: 110
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 8:12 am

12

Post by Sartellcelly » Tue Mar 12, 2013 6:36 am

I feel validated that BAFATA failed to even address, let alone refute, any of my points.

ALL of the '12 class who were cut were bubble kids. None were significant contributors. One quit and another had discipline problems. The 11-12 team gave the eventual state champs the best game of the playoffs. The 11-12 team was a legit exceptional team with the roster that was chosen.

This same class was marginal all the way up through youth hockey. The Bantam A roster when these players were second-years was more than half first-years. Every time their best were second-years, the A team underperformed in Squirt and PWs as well.

Two titles in four years for Curt Giles and the Hornets. I don't think I'd mess with that success.

Now we just need BAFATA to no longer violate his "promise" to be done.

bafata88
Posts: 105
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 8:12 pm

Post by bafata88 » Tue Mar 12, 2013 7:08 am

Celly, I see you will not be convinced with my massive powers of persuasion. And the promise not to bring this up again was meant for when this thread dies. The points you make are completely valid and I know I have the challenge of arguing a scenario that will never happen. But there are plenty of others who believe some additional senior leadership would have helped last year.

Needless to say, I've shared my opinion. This thread should croak.

bafata88
Posts: 105
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 8:12 pm

Post by bafata88 » Tue Mar 12, 2013 7:27 am

Btw, a coaches job is not just to build a winning program. In the NHL, Juniors and College, perhaps yes. A coaches job in Minnesota high school sports is defined in large part by a written code of conduct. It is worth reading.

O-townClown
Posts: 4357
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:22 pm
Location: Typical homeboy from the O-Town

Post by O-townClown » Tue Mar 12, 2013 7:34 am

Bafata, a big reason coaches cut seniors in November is to reduce the risk they'll have them around in February unhappy with a lack of playing time.
Be kind. Rewind.

Tigers33
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:06 pm

Post by Tigers33 » Tue Mar 12, 2013 8:22 am

I know nothing about the Edina program other then they have to many kids that play hockey. I remember looking up the stats of these kids when bafata was going off on this topic a while ago. The players being discussed all seemed like they weren't main contributors their junior season. I don't think there is anything wrong with what was done. They made it to the state tourney the year in question, and gave benilde a run for their money.

Stay true to your promise and please be quiet. For some reason this topic is way to personal to you. Oh yeah, and you keep bringing up the same thing over and over. There is no such thing as entitlement in sports.

Doc Holliday
Posts: 632
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 3:20 pm
Location: SW Suburbs

Post by Doc Holliday » Tue Mar 12, 2013 10:27 am

O-townClown wrote:Bafata, a big reason coaches cut seniors in November is to reduce the risk they'll have them around in February unhappy with a lack of playing time.
Dear O-townClown,

This never happens. Seniors that have reduced playing time always put the team first.

Sincerely,
Senior Farmington Goalie, February 2013

:lol:

bafata88
Posts: 105
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 8:12 pm

Post by bafata88 » Wed Mar 13, 2013 10:47 pm

Hey Tigers, you don't have to read this thread, or my posts. Feel free to ignore me.

Cdale
Posts: 247
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 1:09 pm

Post by Cdale » Wed Mar 13, 2013 10:55 pm

Doc Holliday wrote:
O-townClown wrote:Bafata, a big reason coaches cut seniors in November is to reduce the risk they'll have them around in February unhappy with a lack of playing time.
Dear O-townClown,

This never happens. Seniors that have reduced playing time always put the team first.

Sincerely,
Senior Farmington Goalie, February 2013

:lol:
This is funny....LOL. :lol:

Post Reply