Hockey, and sports in general, are full of unique cultural traits and cliches. It is easy to really isolate hockey and nitpick since it is our sport of choice (I'm assuming). However, these things exist in every single sport. Some more than others, but they do exist.
With hockey we get the fun cliches like "Hard to play against", "Grit", "Sandpaper", "Does the little things right". Most of these are certainly attributable to the real world of hockey and the statistics that come with it. There are also culture and cliches within the mentality of the game as well, that do not have to do with on-ice product but more managerial discretion and direction.
Today, we touch on the idea of "Paying your dues" as a player.
It is clear what that means in a universal sense. You put in the time, you play the way the coaches want you to play, you learn, you develop, and eventually you get your chance. However the role definition in hockey, at least at the top level, is another form of "Paying your dues" and sometimes it feels like that idea can have a negative impact on a team.
It is totally fair to ask players to spend some time developing, spending time in the minors, and overall getting used to an organization. However, with the way the current NHL stands, few players come out of the minors and go right into a top six role. Even players who are perhaps better geared towards that role. Why aren't they put into that role? Well, they simply haven't put in the time or have the seniority to supersede a player already established. Seniority means a lot in hockey, but should it?
Now granted, putting a young player immediately into a large role with a lot of minutes is risky business. The changes that players have to adjust to level to level are pretty significant. It is not always safe to thrust a top 6 AHL forward into a top 6 NHL role. There needs to be an easing in. However, sometimes the hockey culture can take that a little too far.
Perhaps the most prominent example we can point to in recent memory is the saga of Jonathan Drouin.
Jonathan Drouin played 70 games in his rookie NHL season in 2014-15. He did well for a young player statistically, finishing positive in possession, and posting a modest 32 points. He did so in just 13:14 of average time on ice. Want to know what his role was as a young player? Bottom six.
One of the more offensively gifted forwards in the Tampa pipeline, and perhaps in junior hockey in his time, playing bottom six minutes. His most common linemates?
Cedric Paquette, Brian Boyle, Brenden Morrow, and Alex Killorn.
Now, to be fair, the Lightning did put Drouin with Stamkos on the top line for at least a few games. But he received barely any ice time in general, including the 8th most average powerplay time of Tampa Bay forwards.
Drouin, likely unhappy with his role, demotion to the AHL, etc. etc. had a pretty ugly public spar with Tampa Bay this past season which divided people in terms of "Let him play" and "Pay your dues kid."
Now it is fair to line up on either side of that argument, and there is merit both ways.
For a developing hockey team, however, does it make sense? For a team needing to find youth is it prudent to hold players out of roles they could excel in? We run that question through our minds today as we approach a season where the Kings probably WILL have to potentially rely on young players like Nic Dowd, Michael Mersch, Kevin Gravel, and Derek Forbort.
In the past it has been particularly difficult for young players to crack the Kings lineup, and before we start critiquing the coaching of Darryl Sutter, know that some of the most head scratching role limitations started under Terry Murray.
Exhibit A, Wayne Simmonds.
It probably gets hard for Kings fans to realize what they had in Wayne Simmonds. A production level that more than doubled over a single season with limited changes outside of where and who he was playing with. If the Kings knew they had one of the best net front presence players since Thomas Holmstrom, and a perennial 30-goal scorer do you think they would have tossed him away? Likely not. Hindsight IS 20-20, and that should always be taken into consideration with these exercises. However, playing a player where they can succeed from the get go can unlock a lot of information for you almost immediately.
Simmonds always had that grindy, agitating bottom line forward characteristic to him, but it should have been apparent to the Kings after his 16 goals breakout sophomore season that he was more than a bottom line grinder. Simmonds put up 40 points playing zero powerplay time with regular linemates Michal Handzus, an aging Alex Frolov, and fill-in vet pick up Freddy Modin.
The following year, a year in which Simmonds almost certainly should have had his role INCREASED on the team, it was actually decreased if anything.
His average time on ice FELL by almost a minute, he still continued to get zero powerplay usage, with these guys
Michal Handzus, Alexei Ponikarovsky, and Kyle Clifford.
And just for reference, in that year the Kings top 6 wing group included Ryan Smyth, Justin Williams, Dustin Brown....aaaaaand Dustin Penner? It wasn't like there was no room to elevate Simmonds role, it was simply that he had not put in the time perhaps. Maybe that reasoning is speculative, but there does not seem to be a lot of logical reasons why Simmonds should have been held back in such a way. Unfortunately, the Kings let their third liner go in the Mike Richards trade, and the following year he became a near 30 goal scorer playing most regularly with Danny Briere, Claude Giroux, Matt Read, Scott Hartnell, and Brayden Schenn. Make no mistake, we are not criticizing the job or the trade that Dean Lombardi executed. No way. It is just one of those weird hockey things that happens and it makes you shake your head.
A similarly frustrating scenario from the same season, 2010-11 was the handling of Andrei Loktionov.
Now Loktionov showed no propensity towards the grinding physical game like Simmonds. It made him easy to project into a top 6 role, or an offensive minded center's role. Again, problem was that for whatever reason the Kings did not do it. Instead, Jarret Stoll remained the Kings second line center, a transition away from age and "Veteran presence" wasn't made, and the middle center group of Handzus/Stoll was preserved.
The offensive minded center got his 30 game cup of coffee in the NHL with Trevor Lewis, Brad Richardson, and Kyle Clifford most regularly.
The question remains: Why?
If you have a player with a very distinct skillset, why are we pidgeon holing them into a role defined by experience, or lack thereof. Andrei Loktionov probably never should have been in a bottom six role playing with grinders. His skills as a complimentary center, a playmaking center, could never be realized in that spot. They never were, despite perennially posting fairly good possession metrics for a young player
(Stats embed codes weren't working from Hockey Reference, so table courtesy of them!)
Did Oscar Moller have a chance for success in 2009-11 with linemates Brandon Segal, Raitis Ivanans, Michal Handzus, and Dustin Penner?
In hindsight that is a slow pitch softball question. Of course he didn't.
So why do we still do this? The simple fact here is that not every player excels in a bottom six or grinder role. However we still place players in that role because...well...they haven't EARNED the right to play anything other than that yet. For a player who might not excel in that role, they might never see anything other than that, even if they have a great skill set for a role above that.
It is definitely unreasonable to say put Michael Mersch on the top line with Kopitar. That should not happen. But should you explore the idea of putting him on a second line. Or a third line with a more scoring oriented style of play? If you are searching for a player to grow into that role, PUT HIM IN THAT ROLE. It is pretty clear what kind of player someone like Jordan Nolan, Andreoff, Dwight King, or Kyle Clifford are. Those guys you can understand playing the bottom line grinder role, but if you have a center with second caliber play, put him at second line center and see how he does. Putting him at 3rd or 4th line center and wondering why they are not scoring more is a bit strange isn't it? Generational talents are always treated in this way where, they are top line players, let's put them there from the start. Other players, while a little more care is needed, should be treated in the same way.
Paying your dues should be applied to an extent, but when it starts hurting the overall development of players, or the actual upside, then you have a problem. And again, this is one of those things that no team is free of guilt on. But it does seem like a bit of an antiquated practice when you are trying to build players. Roles can be a great thing for players, since they give them a nice definition to play under and can prevent them from trying to do to much. At a certain point though we perhaps get fixated on it instead letting players find their place and excel in positions where their skillsets are maximized. Think in terms of the Kings up and coming players, the needs of the team, and how they are going to be used in this upcoming season. The transition is there, the space is there, and the need must be filled. Do the Kings take advantage of that with perhaps a more forward thinking usage of players? We will see.
Until some of these mindsets change we will probably have a lot of "What if" players, a lot of guys who go to Europe and play tremendous, and/or good AHL players who never get their chance. Should it be that way? You decide. Is paying your dues a necessary evil? Or is it an antiquated practice we should move away from in development?
(Stats provided by Corsica.Hockey and Hockey Reference)
Follow me on twitter for news and notes about the Kings, the Reign, and the NHL
Also be sure to like HockeyBuzz on facebook!
++++I AM CURRENTLY LOOKING FOR ADVERTISERS! If you, or anyone you know would be interested in placing an ad on the blog here at HockeyBuzz then send me a PM!+++++
Los Angeles Kings Blogger • 
Join the Discussion:
»