Let's Go Blues

cprice12 wrote:Hitch just said during an interview the other day that it doesn't matter if they are younger or a veteran...whoever is playing better will play.
Now, talk is cheap...but we'll see if that is actually the case.
He also said that Elliott starts tonight and beyond that he doesn't know. I'm hoping that part of it is just "interview talk", because I would hope that as long as Elliott is playing well he'll play the vast majority of the games down the stretch.

"Better" is subjective. What if Hitch thinks it's better to contribute zero points as long as you never missed a defensive assignment?

drwoland wrote:

cprice12 wrote:Hitch just said during an interview the other day that it doesn't matter if they are younger or a veteran...whoever is playing better will play.
Now, talk is cheap...but we'll see if that is actually the case.
He also said that Elliott starts tonight and beyond that he doesn't know. I'm hoping that part of it is just "interview talk", because I would hope that as long as Elliott is playing well he'll play the vast majority of the games down the stretch.

"Better" is subjective. What if Hitch thinks it's better to contribute zero points as long as you never missed a defensive assignment?

My understanding was that Hitch preferred veterans over rookies/young players every day of the week. When Tank was avaliable in the playoffs when he (Tank) first came over, Hitch didn't even give him the time of day. If that was some contract issue or something, do correct me, but my understanding of him, just by following him, is that he'd rather put a veteran that downright sucks or is limited in their play out there over a prospect or rookie.

Oaklandblue wrote:

drwoland wrote:

cprice12 wrote:Hitch just said during an interview the other day that it doesn't matter if they are younger or a veteran...whoever is playing better will play.
Now, talk is cheap...but we'll see if that is actually the case.
He also said that Elliott starts tonight and beyond that he doesn't know. I'm hoping that part of it is just "interview talk", because I would hope that as long as Elliott is playing well he'll play the vast majority of the games down the stretch.

"Better" is subjective. What if Hitch thinks it's better to contribute zero points as long as you never missed a defensive assignment?

My understanding was that Hitch preferred veterans over rookies/young players every day of the week. When Tank was avaliable in the playoffs when he (Tank) first came over, Hitch didn't even give him the time of day. If that was some contract issue or something, do correct me, but my understanding of him, just by following him, is that he'd rather put a veteran that downright sucks or is limited in their play out there over a prospect or rookie.

I don't think it was a contract issue, but I don't think you're being fair in your representation of it either. Tarasenko had conditioning issues that year and was still fairly inconsistent as a player.

I don't think Hitch would rather have a veteran that sucks over a young guy with potential (at least phrased that way). But, one thing to keep in mind is that rookies and prospects are still developing and adjusting to the league. Developing players make mistakes at a higher rate than veterans. While frequency of mistakes is hardly the only factor in building a lineup, when so much is on the line you do have to consider it.

That's why I'm not upset about having Jokinen. If there's an injury, none of the replacements are going to be game changers. None of them. So, I don't mind having a guy that's been around for awhile that knows the ropes and is less likely to do something stupid.

cardsfan04 wrote:

Oaklandblue wrote:

drwoland wrote:

cprice12 wrote:Hitch just said during an interview the other day that it doesn't matter if they are younger or a veteran...whoever is playing better will play.
Now, talk is cheap...but we'll see if that is actually the case.
He also said that Elliott starts tonight and beyond that he doesn't know. I'm hoping that part of it is just "interview talk", because I would hope that as long as Elliott is playing well he'll play the vast majority of the games down the stretch.

"Better" is subjective. What if Hitch thinks it's better to contribute zero points as long as you never missed a defensive assignment?

My understanding was that Hitch preferred veterans over rookies/young players every day of the week. When Tank was avaliable in the playoffs when he (Tank) first came over, Hitch didn't even give him the time of day. If that was some contract issue or something, do correct me, but my understanding of him, just by following him, is that he'd rather put a veteran that downright sucks or is limited in their play out there over a prospect or rookie.

I don't think it was a contract issue, but I don't think you're being fair in your representation of it either. Tarasenko had conditioning issues that year and was still fairly inconsistent as a player.

I don't think Hitch would rather have a veteran that sucks over a young guy with potential (at least phrased that way). But, one thing to keep in mind is that rookies and prospects are still developing and adjusting to the league. Developing players make mistakes at a higher rate than veterans. While frequency of mistakes is hardly the only factor in building a lineup, when so much is on the line you do have to consider it.

That's why I'm not upset about having Jokinen. If there's an injury, none of the replacements are going to be game changers. None of them. So, I don't mind having a guy that's been around for awhile that knows the ropes and is less likely to do something stupid.

Mind I said my understanding. I may not understand at all, thus is why I posted the above. I don't think it's a bad discussion topic, since until recently we haven't made anyone really ride pine beyond when Hitch pulled Tank and put Bergy in his place for a bit the game before and the whole Allen - Ells - Allen bit. I like the fact that he's hedging towards doing that (Or is it just a fluke from a really fluky game?) and I for one would like to see what Joker brings to the table, on the ice.

cprice12 wrote:Hitch just said during an interview the other day that it doesn't matter if they are younger or a veteran...whoever is playing better will play.
Now, talk is cheap...but we'll see if that is actually the case.

Naturally he'd say that and for the record, I'm not suggesting he'll go with a veteran who "sucks" regardless. It's that veteran status clearly shades his evaluation of players' quality. I don't feel like I need to watch what he does to know that after closely watching what he does for over 3 seasons and being familiar with his career generally.

I'm not upset about having Jokinen either. I just worry he'll take minutes from a better player and I do think the pick given for him was just thrown away.

ecbm wrote:

cprice12 wrote:Hitch just said during an interview the other day that it doesn't matter if they are younger or a veteran...whoever is playing better will play.
Now, talk is cheap...but we'll see if that is actually the case.

Naturally he'd say that and for the record, I'm not suggesting he'll go with a veteran who "sucks" regardless. It's that veteran status clearly shades his evaluation of players' quality. I don't feel like I need to watch what he does to know that after closely watching what he does for over 3 seasons and being familiar with his career generally.

I'm not upset about having Jokinen either. I just worry he'll take minutes from a better player and I do think the pick given for him was just thrown away.

Which is why I said "talk is cheap"...and I agree with you that when Hitch says "whoever is playing better" is subjective on his analysis and who fits better in his system.

And I'm not going to lose any sleep whatsoever over losing a 6th rd. pick. Giving up Lindstrom was nothing, and giving up a 6th rd. pick was essentially nothing. If Jokinen helps this team just a tiny little bit, the trade is easily worth it.