Future Minnesota recruits

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

Gopher Blog
Posts: 1548
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2006 10:14 am
Contact:

Post by Gopher Blog » Mon Mar 26, 2012 1:42 pm

MNHockeyFan wrote:I think Holl more so than Marshall, who does make freshman mistakes but will often make up for them offensively. He scored a big goal yesterday to get the Gophers on the board. I thought Holl struggled throughout the game and he did take two penalties in the 3rd period when UND was trying to mount another comeback.
I still maintain that if everybody stays on D, they should move Marshall up to forward in the short term. He has the skating and skill to handle it. I don't know how he'd like it but if it is the difference between playing or sitting, I think I'd do whatever it took to be in the lineup.

I'm not a big Holl fan but he is only an underclassmen so I would never give up on him this soon. He has good ability but he needs to play smarter and I'd like to see some additional physical play from him.

In any case, the good thing is they have this "problem". I'd rather have a few too many talented players than not enough. If anything, it protects the Gophers in case they do lose a few guys in the off-season.

mulefarm
Posts: 1669
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:01 pm

Post by mulefarm » Mon Mar 26, 2012 1:55 pm

Gopher Blog wrote:
mulefarm wrote:Why would Lucia carry 10 D? If this years D is good enough to get to the Frozen 4 and possibly a National Championship, do you think Lucia would sit one of those players? How is this fair to the players, this would send a bad message to future recriuts about loyalty. Also NHL teams and agents would not be happy with their drafted players sitting in press box. Will be interesting on how this is handled?
First, a couple of those D men are low/no scholarship guys (Thompson, Student, and Parenteau) and realistically don't have a ton of future opportunities for pro hockey. Lower level pro or European hockey at best.

Second, what would it have to do with loyalty? Any recruit/player that has any desire to make it in the pros knows it is a major competition for playing time and you have to raise your performance in order to see the ice. These guys aren't a bunch of naive mite hockey players. You put your best lineup out there and these guys know they have to work hard to maintain their opportunities. It's not just given to you simply because you had it before. You still have to earn it every year.

It won't shock me if they lose at least one guy on defense this off-season anyway. Frankly, the only returning D man I wouldn't want to lose this off-season is Nate Schmidt as I think he could be an all-American next year. That move he put on Forbort yesterday that lead to the 3rd Gopher goal was pretty sweet.
Seems like you've changed your tune. In the comments about Gardiner you mentioned it's not good for recruiting to shaft guys. If you sit any of the returning D, especially early in the year, I would say that would be getting the shaft.

Gopher Blog
Posts: 1548
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2006 10:14 am
Contact:

Post by Gopher Blog » Mon Mar 26, 2012 2:46 pm

mulefarm wrote:Seems like you've changed your tune. In the comments about Gardiner you mentioned it's not good for recruiting to shaft guys. If you sit any of the returning D, especially early in the year, I would say that would be getting the shaft.
Hardly. You are taking two entirely different situations and comparing them. Its not an apples to apples situation.

When players (new and veteran) are all on the same team, it is an open competition for playing time. There is no such thing as shafting anybody in those situations. Every year is different and you still have to earn your playing opportunities. Every college coach handles it that way. If you have a culture of entitlement, you are not exactly encouraging players to be their best and improve. You play your best players whether they are first year guys or seniors.

You do realize that even NHL veterans have to fight for their opportunities from one season to the next... right? So how is it any different for college players? :lol:

BodyShots
Posts: 1774
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 9:44 am

Post by BodyShots » Mon Mar 26, 2012 2:49 pm

Gopher Blog wrote:
mulefarm wrote:Why would Lucia carry 10 D? If this years D is good enough to get to the Frozen 4 and possibly a National Championship, do you think Lucia would sit one of those players? How is this fair to the players, this would send a bad message to future recriuts about loyalty. Also NHL teams and agents would not be happy with their drafted players sitting in press box. Will be interesting on how this is handled?
First, a couple of those D men are low/no scholarship guys (Thompson, Student, and Parenteau) and realistically don't have a ton of future opportunities for pro hockey. Lower level pro or European hockey at best.

Second, what would it have to do with loyalty? Any recruit/player that has any desire to make it in the pros knows it is a major competition for playing time and you have to raise your performance in order to see the ice. These guys aren't a bunch of naive mite hockey players. You put your best lineup out there and these guys know they have to work hard to maintain their opportunities. It's not just given to you simply because you had it before. You still have to earn it every year.

It won't shock me if they lose at least one guy on defense this off-season anyway. Frankly, the only returning D man I wouldn't want to lose this off-season is Nate Schmidt as I think he could be an all-American next year. That move he put on Forbort yesterday that lead to the 3rd Gopher goal was pretty sweet.
I think I saw Forbort out of the Xcel ice this morning still looking for his jock! :lol:

mulefarm
Posts: 1669
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:01 pm

Post by mulefarm » Mon Mar 26, 2012 4:01 pm

Gopher Blog wrote:
mulefarm wrote:Seems like you've changed your tune. In the comments about Gardiner you mentioned it's not good for recruiting to shaft guys. If you sit any of the returning D, especially early in the year, I would say that would be getting the shaft.
Hardly. You are taking two entirely different situations and comparing them. Its not an apples to apples situation.

When players (new and veteran) are all on the same team, it is an open competition for playing time. There is no such thing as shafting anybody in those situations. Every year is different and you still have to earn your playing opportunities. Every college coach handles it that way. If you have a culture of entitlement, you are not exactly encouraging players to be their best and improve. You play your best players whether they are first year guys or seniors.

You do realize that even NHL veterans have to fight for their opportunities from one season to the next... right? So how is it any different for college players? :lol:
I guess we have a different definition of loyalty. Yes, NHL veterans do fight for opportunities, but they have contracts and a CBA. Not really comparing apples to apples.

Gopher Blog
Posts: 1548
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2006 10:14 am
Contact:

Post by Gopher Blog » Mon Mar 26, 2012 4:40 pm

mulefarm wrote:I guess we have a different definition of loyalty. Yes, NHL veterans do fight for opportunities, but they have contracts and a CBA. Not really comparing apples to apples.
Not sure what contracts have to do with it. College players in essence have contracts as well. Its just that they are "paid" with scholarship as opposed to any money. If anything, college players have more security since they can't be sent to the minors. They stick with the team no matter what (barring something behavioral that is).

So you would run a team based on seniority rather than ability? Good luck running a company or a successful team that way. Coaches like Herb Brooks would laugh in your face. All great coaches expect the players to earn it... every year. Not based on entitlement but based on effort and ability.

I'd understand your point on loyalty if they were actually cutting players from the roster. But that isn't happening. We are simply talking about who gets playing opportunities.

I don't know what team you root for in college hockey. I've had the vibe it is North Dakota. If so, you are kidding yourself if you think Hakstol handles it any differently than what I describe. He plays young talented players ahead of veterans too. Its about what makes the team the best it can be.

A team is a team... doesn't matter whether it is pro, college or HS. You play the best player whether they are new or veteran. That's how sports work. :idea:

mulefarm
Posts: 1669
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:01 pm

Post by mulefarm » Mon Mar 26, 2012 6:56 pm

Didn't say because of seniority a player should play, but I would think most coaches would give a player who performed for them in a positive way, would recieve the benefit of the doubt. I don't think postions are wide open at the beginning of the season at the higher levels. Herb Brooks was as loyal to his players as they came, not that he wouldn't make tough decisions, but players who played well for him always got the benefit of the doubt. He took players that would make the best team, not always the best players. The NHL is different because of players having to go through waivers, one way contracts, very defined rolls, may want younger player to get more minutes in minors, minimum and maximum salary cap restrictions, union contract. I'm sure they want the best team on the ice, but is not always the case. Even though I do like ND, my favorite coollege team is th BSU Beavers!

Gopher Blog
Posts: 1548
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2006 10:14 am
Contact:

Post by Gopher Blog » Mon Mar 26, 2012 7:33 pm

mulefarm wrote:Didn't say because of seniority a player should play, but I would think most coaches would give a player who performed for them in a positive way, would recieve the benefit of the doubt.
Everybody has an equal opportunity early in the season in practice to show how hard they worked in the off-season to be ready. They are all given the benefit of the doubt but have to prove it too. They sort out who deserves what based on the effort. That's how it should be.
I don't think postions are wide open at the beginning of the season at the higher levels.
I think they are in some respects but not in every respect. Certainly if you have returning star players like a Jack Connolly or a Nick Bjugstad, odds are those guys are going to remain in 1st line roles. But most roster spots are not as clear cut like that.
Herb Brooks was as loyal to his players as they came, not that he wouldn't make tough decisions, but players who played well for him always got the benefit of the doubt.
Herb Brooks had to cut players that played for him too.

The key phrase in your quote above is players who played well for him. In other words, it is a performance based decision. A coach plays the guys who are performing well. But sometimes young players come in and show more than a veteran. That's reality... and its not disloyal to play the new guy if he is performing better. All these players understand that and have to understand that if they want to make it as a pro.

You play the performers. That's all I was ever advocating. If a returning guy shows he is the best player for an opportunity, then I support keeping him there. But if he isn't, you don't keep him there out of past performance. You play the guy that helps the team the most no matter if he is new or a veteran.

Sats81
Posts: 2733
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2011 9:29 am

Post by Sats81 » Tue Mar 27, 2012 12:04 pm

Gopher Blog wrote:
mulefarm wrote:Didn't say because of seniority a player should play, but I would think most coaches would give a player who performed for them in a positive way, would recieve the benefit of the doubt.
Everybody has an equal opportunity early in the season in practice to show how hard they worked in the off-season to be ready. They are all given the benefit of the doubt but have to prove it too. They sort out who deserves what based on the effort. That's how it should be.
I don't think postions are wide open at the beginning of the season at the higher levels.
I think they are in some respects but not in every respect. Certainly if you have returning star players like a Jack Connolly or a Nick Bjugstad, odds are those guys are going to remain in 1st line roles. But most roster spots are not as clear cut like that.
Herb Brooks was as loyal to his players as they came, not that he wouldn't make tough decisions, but players who played well for him always got the benefit of the doubt.
Herb Brooks had to cut players that played for him too.

The key phrase in your quote above is players who played well for him. In other words, it is a performance based decision. A coach plays the guys who are performing well. But sometimes young players come in and show more than a veteran. That's reality... and its not disloyal to play the new guy if he is performing better. All these players understand that and have to understand that if they want to make it as a pro.

You play the performers. That's all I was ever advocating. If a returning guy shows he is the best player for an opportunity, then I support keeping him there. But if he isn't, you don't keep him there out of past performance. You play the guy that helps the team the most no matter if he is new or a veteran.


Spot on.

observer
Posts: 2227
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 8:45 pm

Post by observer » Tue Mar 27, 2012 12:21 pm

Lots of D talk. The Gophers are losing a few senior forwards. Who are the incoming forwards for 2012-2013 season?

Will Kloos come straight in?
Conor Reilly?
Ryan Reilly?
AJ Michaelson ready?

The next wave of forwards are judged to be strong and include Fasching, Cammarata, Guertler, Lettieri and Nanne. Not saying they'll be coming straight in but a larger group.

I also saw something interesting on the USHL page with college commitments as it seemed UMD had 10 players and the Gophs like 3-4. Appears UMD has made a lot of promises that they may not be able to keep. Any Bulldog followers out there?

http://www.ushl.com/?item_id=2529

PuckU126
Posts: 3768
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 9:52 pm
Location: Minnesota
Contact:

Post by PuckU126 » Tue Mar 27, 2012 1:03 pm

observer wrote:Any Bulldog followers out there?
Lee and Karl, our moderators, are of course.

8)
The Puck
LGW

karl(east)
Posts: 6083
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 9:03 pm
Contact:

Post by karl(east) » Tue Mar 27, 2012 6:11 pm

PuckU126 wrote:
observer wrote:Any Bulldog followers out there?
Lee and Karl, our moderators, are of course.

8)
You'd be better off asking Lee...I follow the 'Dogs casually, but having no relation to the university (and stronger ties to Wisconsin, of any WCHA school), I'm not completely caught up on their recruits for 12-13.

This site has 6 recruits coming in, which I think is about what they're losing: http://www.umdbulldogs.com/teams-mens-h ... ecruitment
Maybe some of the others are for later years?

PuckU126
Posts: 3768
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 9:52 pm
Location: Minnesota
Contact:

Post by PuckU126 » Tue Mar 27, 2012 6:44 pm

karl(east) wrote:I follow the 'Dogs casually, but having no relation to the university (and stronger ties to Wisconsin, of any WCHA school)
Sigh...

Of course you do, Karl. :roll: :lol:

8)
The Puck
LGW

Gopher Blog
Posts: 1548
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2006 10:14 am
Contact:

Post by Gopher Blog » Fri Mar 30, 2012 12:12 pm

observer wrote:Lots of D talk. The Gophers are losing a few senior forwards. Who are the incoming forwards for 2012-2013 season?

Will Kloos come straight in?
Conor Reilly?
Ryan Reilly?
AJ Michaelson ready?

The next wave of forwards are judged to be strong and include Fasching, Cammarata, Guertler, Lettieri and Nanne. Not saying they'll be coming straight in but a larger group.
The Reillys and Michaelson will for sure be coming in. I think Kloos is still a bit up in the air but I'd probably lean toward thinking he will come in.

The Gophers will be adding at least one more forward up front outside of those names for next season.

observer
Posts: 2227
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 8:45 pm

Post by observer » Fri Mar 30, 2012 1:07 pm

Michaelson will for sure be coming in. I think Kloos is still a bit up in the air


Why do you think (maybe know) Michaelson, a 94 who's game has stalled, will be coming in and Kloos, a 93 who is no question a better player than Michaelson may not?

Do you even think Michaelson will get a regular shift in the USHL playoffs as he's the 10th leading forward scorer (19 points) on Waterloo. Cammarata, a 95, has 59 points.

Gopher Blog
Posts: 1548
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2006 10:14 am
Contact:

Post by Gopher Blog » Fri Mar 30, 2012 3:43 pm

observer wrote:
Michaelson will for sure be coming in. I think Kloos is still a bit up in the air


Why do you think (maybe know) Michaelson, a 94 who's game has stalled, will be coming in and Kloos, a 93 who is no question a better player than Michaelson may not?

Do you even think Michaelson will get a regular shift in the USHL playoffs as he's the 10th leading forward scorer (19 points) on Waterloo. Cammarata, a 95, has 59 points.
I wasn't intending on making it an AJ vs. Kloos discussion. I think Kloos will be the better scorer, etc. in college. However, AJ was considered a lock to come in 2012 and Kloos has been a "maybe". Maybe it is because they defined to AJ what year he would come in before he committed. When you look at the number of forwards graduating, it makes sense for him to come now even though he hasn't had great USHL success.

It could come down to positional needs. The Gophers could be pretty strong at center on the top three lines next season and I think AJ fits a winger role better than Kloos would. Having Kloos wait a year would give him some valuable time in the USHL and a better chance to be an impact scorer for most of his career.

I think it is fair to say AJ isn't going to be a scorer in college if he isn't in the USHL. Of course, put him in the BCHL and he'd probably be a top 10 scorer. lol

But I think AJ projects to be a 3rd or 4th line winger type in college. Which is a role he could fit right away if necessary.

Honestly, it won't shock me if both come in next year given roster needs. But I do think if they were going to delay one of them, it would be Kloos right now. That's the impression I have been given.

I don't know what AJ will see for ice time in the playoffs. He's been injured and out of the lineup. I don't know what the prognosis is heading into the playoffs.
Last edited by Gopher Blog on Sat Mar 31, 2012 6:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Neuuman
Posts: 136
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 8:22 pm

Post by Neuuman » Sat Mar 31, 2012 2:47 pm

Pretty hard to argue against anything you said. I think Kloos coming in depends entirely on who leaves early (Bjugstad, Haula). I would say that if Kloos does come in, they're not looking for him to play a 3rd or 4th line role. He could do that in Waterloo. IMHO

MNHockeyFan
Posts: 6790
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:28 pm

Post by MNHockeyFan » Sat Mar 31, 2012 6:23 pm

Neuuman wrote:I think Kloos coming in depends entirely on who leaves early (Bjugstad, Haula).
Pretty much what Lucia said in response to a question at the last Blueline Club luncheon.

Gopher Blog
Posts: 1548
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2006 10:14 am
Contact:

Post by Gopher Blog » Sat Mar 31, 2012 6:35 pm

MNHockeyFan wrote:
Neuuman wrote:I think Kloos coming in depends entirely on who leaves early (Bjugstad, Haula).
Pretty much what Lucia said in response to a question at the last Blueline Club luncheon.
Out of curiosity, did Lucia happen to venture an opinion at the luncheon on whether he felt Bjugstad would be back? I used to think it was a given that he'd leave but I've been hearing more and more that the coaching staff actually feels pretty good about the chances he'll come back for his junior season.

Tigers33
Posts: 877
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:06 pm

Post by Tigers33 » Sat Mar 31, 2012 9:01 pm

I would say no chance Haula signs. The Wild have to many prospects coming in next year already. Plus they have to like how he is developing right now.

Bjugstad looks like he will be back, unless the Gophers win it all. Than its my guess that he is gone.

With his past history of injuries it still wouldnt surprise me to see Budish want to sign.

If this is the case the Gophers could really launch up the charts next season.

MNHockeyFan
Posts: 6790
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:28 pm

Post by MNHockeyFan » Sat Mar 31, 2012 10:19 pm

Gopher Blog wrote:Out of curiosity, did Lucia happen to venture an opinion at the luncheon on whether he felt Bjugstad would be back? I used to think it was a given that he'd leave but I've been hearing more and more that the coaching staff actually feels pretty good about the chances he'll come back for his junior season.
The question about Bjugstad never came up in all of the luncheons I went to this year. And I suppose even if it had, Lucia would not have answered it directly, even if he knew what Bjugstad was planning to do.

Gopher Blog
Posts: 1548
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2006 10:14 am
Contact:

Post by Gopher Blog » Thu Apr 19, 2012 1:50 pm

Add Christian Horn to the 2012 class.

observer
Posts: 2227
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 8:45 pm

Post by observer » Thu Apr 19, 2012 2:46 pm

Congrats to Christian! But, that's a confusing announcement.

It must mean they're losing some players beyond the seniors. Or, Michaelson isn't ready and will spend another year in Waterloo. Also, an indication Kloos is coming staight in.

Sort some of it out for us?

Gopher Blog
Posts: 1548
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2006 10:14 am
Contact:

Post by Gopher Blog » Fri Apr 20, 2012 1:00 am

observer wrote:Congrats to Christian! But, that's a confusing announcement.

It must mean they're losing some players beyond the seniors. Or, Michaelson isn't ready and will spend another year in Waterloo. Also, an indication Kloos is coming staight in.

Sort some of it out for us?
Not at all. The Gophers lose 5 forwards to graduation and only the Reillys and Michaelson were for sure coming in. That makes 15 forwards for next year as they had 16 forwards on their roster last season and they typically carry 15 during a season. Unless they lose a guy early to a pro contract, Kloos will play with Waterloo next fall

MNHockeyFan
Posts: 6790
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:28 pm

Post by MNHockeyFan » Fri Apr 20, 2012 10:50 am

Gopher Blog wrote:Unless they lose a guy early to a pro contract, Kloos will play with Waterloo next fall
Is Horn considered to be further ahead in his development than Kloos? I was wondering why they are not asking him to play juniors for a year?

Post Reply