Jason Lewis: Does "Paying Your Dues" Hurt More Than Help a Developing Roster?

Its really easy for bloggers and fans to sit around and say that young kids need a chance in the top six but put yourself in a coaches shoes. You have established veterans that you can almost count on to produce offense, that were signed by your boss to do just that. Guys that have a track record of performing at a top six level in the NHL, sometimes for years and you have no good reason to think they will perform differently. Now you have a young kid that might produce better offense in a veterans role, but you can pretty much count on him producing more than a bottom six player already on your team. Your job, teams playoff chances and future career depend on these choices. What would you do?

I'd play the kid in a lesser role until it becomes apparent he is fit for a bigger one, or one of the Vets shows he is no longer fit for his role. If Drouin would have just played hockey he would have been back in the NHL a lot sooner and not have a history of "problems"

Its really easy for bloggers and fans to sit around and say that young kids need a chance in the top six but put yourself in a coaches shoes. You have established veterans that you can almost count on to produce offense, that were signed by your boss to do just that. Guys that have a track record of performing at a top six level in the NHL, sometimes for years and you have no good reason to think they will perform differently. Now you have a young kid that might produce better offense in a veterans role, but you can pretty much count on him producing more than a bottom six player already on your team. Your job, teams playoff chances and future career depend on these choices. What would you do?

I'd play the kid in a lesser role until it becomes apparent he is fit for a bigger one, or one of the Vets shows he is no longer fit for his role. If Drouin would have just played hockey he would have been back in the NHL a lot sooner and not have a history of "problems"
- Grinder47

Great comment.

Teams have invested picks and money into prospects and want to see them develop into assets as quality players, but development is an inexact science. Even with superstar rookies it's debatable if they should play in the AHL or go right to the NHL. McDavid and Eichel were quite successful playing in the NHL last year but who knows if a year in the AHL would have been a better step to take?

The reality is organization pick a path they think makes sense and that's what happens. Sometimes they make mistakes and it's easy to point to when they got it wrong. But they are are most successful when their prospects are successful so they are all trying to get to the same goal.

It's not hard to find prospects who seemed to be rushed into the NHL and (what seems like) diminished careers.

Jason you forget that the Kings play a defense first game and everyone suffers in scoring when they play for the Kings.

Its really easy for bloggers and fans to sit around and say that young kids need a chance in the top six but put yourself in a coaches shoes. You have established veterans that you can almost count on to produce offense, that were signed by your boss to do just that. Guys that have a track record of performing at a top six level in the NHL, sometimes for years and you have no good reason to think they will perform differently. Now you have a young kid that might produce better offense in a veterans role, but you can pretty much count on him producing more than a bottom six player already on your team. Your job, teams playoff chances and future career depend on these choices. What would you do?

I'd play the kid in a lesser role until it becomes apparent he is fit for a bigger one, or one of the Vets shows he is no longer fit for his role. If Drouin would have just played hockey he would have been back in the NHL a lot sooner and not have a history of "problems"
- Grinder47

It's true, there is a balance that has to be maintained. You cannot just thrust these guys into roles they aren't ready for.

Guys like Gagner, Yakupov, etc....they HAVE suffered from that, and I think it is proper to notice that. I think where I should have been more clear is that the players the Kings dealt with, Simmonds, Moller, Loktionov etc...they had put in a bit of time prior to that and showed promise. When they were not elevated it was curious.

So this is a great comment, you are correct, there has to be a balance in how quickly you advance players into their most useful roles. BUT we have to hope that coaches actually DO elevate them into those roles when the time is right rather than abiding by the law of veterans

It's true, there is a balance that has to be maintained. You cannot just thrust these guys into roles they aren't ready for.

Guys like Gagner, Yakupov, etc....they HAVE suffered from that, and I think it is proper to notice that. I think where I should have been more clear is that the players the Kings dealt with, Simmonds, Moller, Loktionov etc...they had put in a bit of time prior to that and showed promise. When they were not elevated it was curious.

So this is a great comment, you are correct, there has to be a balance in how quickly you advance players into their most useful roles. BUT we have to hope that coaches actually DO elevate them into those roles when the time is right rather than abiding by the law of veterans
- Jason_Lewis

Add in Grigorenko to that list.

I agree with you, it does not make sense to seemingly set some players up to fail, but the more egregious errors for me is when kids like Drouin are not used on the PP.

Ryan Callahan had 100 more minutes in a few more games of PP time than Drouin in 14-15.

this is also why i think the jury needs to be out on nick shore for the most part. its not like he had toffoli on his wing or anyone who could actually score.

mersch will waste in a 4th line role with other "big bodies" who do little to create offensively. if he gets in the lineup at all, quite frankly. for as much as sutter "has" to start playing the kids more, i'll believe it when i see it. maddening and then some.

related to this article, is also why the organization even bothers drafting anyone who isn't at least 6 ft and 200 lbs...sutter won't use them, and they'll likely be mis-cast even if they do get time.

Love you Jason.... but please cut down on the usage of "however." Thanks

Mersch, Dowd, Gravel

In using Drouin as an example, I really think he is the perfect example of an organisation treating these players as pawns. Keeping in mind the roster Tampa has, players they need to sign, & cap space running out, did they really need Drouin in the NHL this season - regardless of his ability? He was waiver exempt I believe so that's an easy out for the organisation to put him down over tempting fate with other players on waivers.

So for Tampa, putting Drouin down solves the roster problem, gives him less advantage when negotiating his next contract & really Tampa is fine without his talent. Ignoring Drouins development for the good of the organisation appeared to be the objective of Yzerman.

Is that the right thing to do?

Now, if another organisation wanted Drouin & would play him in the NHL where he would develop faster, why shouldn't he be able to go & further his career? If organisations don't want to play these young guys for any different reason, I think they should be able to leave (with certain boundaries & remuneration of course). Or, loan the young guns out for a draft pick(s), for a season & let them play - have the other organisation take the 'chance' of failure. After that season he returns or is negotiated to be traded permanently. Let players that have the ability, play where they should/could be playing.

In using Drouin as an example, I really think he is the perfect example of an organisation treating these players as pawns. Keeping in mind the roster Tampa has, players they need to sign, & cap space running out, did they really need Drouin in the NHL this season - regardless of his ability? He was waiver exempt I believe so that's an easy out for the organisation to put him down over tempting fate with other players on waivers.

So for Tampa, putting Drouin down solves the roster problem, gives him less advantage when negotiating his next contract & really Tampa is fine without his talent. Ignoring Drouins development for the good of the organisation appeared to be the objective of Yzerman.

Is that the right thing to do?

Now, if another organisation wanted Drouin & would play him in the NHL where he would develop faster, why shouldn't he be able to go & further his career? If organisations don't want to play these young guys for any different reason, I think they should be able to leave (with certain boundaries & remuneration of course). Or, loan the young guns out for a draft pick(s), for a season & let them play - have the other organisation take the 'chance' of failure. After that season he returns or is negotiated to be traded permanently. Let players that have the ability, play where they should/could be playing.
- Aussiepenguin

Because there is a collective bargaining agreement that, in exchange for certain labor concessions, the NHL gets control of player movement. If there was no union, then every player could negotiate their own deal. This would hugely benefit some players, but the majority would not benefit. Long term benefits like pension and health care would be negotiated on an individual basis and would not be available to all other than what are available to employees in Canada and the US generally. Would Drouin have benefited from an NHL without a collective bargaining agreement? Who knows.

"Pay your dues" is more of an excuse than anything. Doughty didn't have to pay any dues, nor did Kopitar. Most players aren't ready or good enough to step into starring roles like that, but, instead of just saying that, coaches and GMs talk about "paying dues" to not risk upsetting or discouraging them. Young players aren't stupid, though. They see other players paying no or fewer dues and recognize that they're being treated differently. Most simply swallow it, but, occasionally, you have players like Drouin. Even those that swallow it, though, may not forget and may hold it against the organizations when it comes time for new contracts.

That's not to say that you should just give them the best roles at the start, for fear of upsetting them, but you don't need to sell them an excuse that they can see through. Perhaps it'd be best to just be honest and tell them that they need to be better, rather than let some of them privately believe that they're already good enough, but need to, first, put in grunt work (that they may do robotically, instead of actually working on improvement).

That said, there's a big difference between players like Drouin and Simmonds, with youth and innate talent, and the players that we're talking about with LA (Mersch, Dowd, Shore, etc.), who have neither youth nor much talent (at least nothing that, so far, resembles top-6 NHL talent). I agree that, if you have a 2nd-line-caliber player, it may be "forward thinking" to try him on the 2nd line early, but I disagree that any of these guys are that caliber of player, based on pedigree and performance so far. They haven't torn up the QMJHL like Drouin or already had a few productive seasons in the NHL like Simmonds. They've had a productive season or two in the AHL as 22-25yos, which doesn't scream "give these guys top-6 roles in the NHL and see if they flourish in them." If there's someone in the pipeline who we might eventually agree has 2nd-line potential and should be given an opportunity on a 2nd line early, it's probably Kempe, but that discussion is likely not to happen this training camp, since he hasn't yet "paid his dues" (sorry; couldn't resist).

Jason, I know you started blogging on Hockey Buzz in 2013 and your articles are generally informative and or thought-provoking.

But, sometimes I feel you think the Kings franchise began in 2013 as well.

This article is a case in point.

"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? ... Unfortunately, the Kings let their third liner go in the Mike Richards trade..."

"Unfortunately"? "UNFORTUNATELY"?

Excuse me, but what the bleep is "unfortunate" about winning the Stanley Cup for the first time in 45 years as a franchise?

As anyone who has followed the Kings for decades can tell you, the Kings were not going to win the Stanley Cup in 2012 with Wayne Simmonds and Jack Johnson.

They may not have even made the playoffs. Dean Lombardi would have likely been out as general manager and whoever Tim "Lies-Weekly" would have hired to replace him would have probably been given the squeeze again on player contracts.

It is doubtful mid-season hire Darryl Sutter would have been kept on as coach (that is if he would have even wanted to stay given the situation).

Simmonds? His contract was up. The Kings, reverting to their old management styles, would have been too cheap to sign him and he probably would have been traded away later for a bag of pucks anyway. Then we would have listened to another Tim "Lies-Weekly" end of season speech about the Kings latest re-building effort to bring the Cup to Los Angeles while the players were arranging their April golf schedules.

If Richards isn’t in Los Angeles, the whole rational for acquiring Jeff Carter (to team them up again) vanishes, too.

Dean Lombardi’s acquisition of Mike Richards was ***THE*** reason the Kings won the Stanley Cup in 2012 (and again in 2014, with a conference final appearance sandwiched in between). I’ll take that any day of the week over keeping a potential perennial 30-goal scorer.

In using Drouin as an example, I really think he is the perfect example of an organisation treating these players as pawns. Keeping in mind the roster Tampa has, players they need to sign, & cap space running out, did they really need Drouin in the NHL this season - regardless of his ability? He was waiver exempt I believe so that's an easy out for the organisation to put him down over tempting fate with other players on waivers.

So for Tampa, putting Drouin down solves the roster problem, gives him less advantage when negotiating his next contract & really Tampa is fine without his talent. Ignoring Drouins development for the good of the organisation appeared to be the objective of Yzerman.

Is that the right thing to do?

Now, if another organisation wanted Drouin & would play him in the NHL where he would develop faster, why shouldn't he be able to go & further his career? If organisations don't want to play these young guys for any different reason, I think they should be able to leave (with certain boundaries & remuneration of course). Or, loan the young guns out for a draft pick(s), for a season & let them play - have the other organisation take the 'chance' of failure. After that season he returns or is negotiated to be traded permanently. Let players that have the ability, play where they should/could be playing.
- Aussiepenguin

What would ever be the point of a contract then? Sign it, until something doesn't go your way then opt of of it. Seems awful NBA/NFL player like to me. You can talk circles around the Drouin thing but at the end of the day the best thing to do is sign with the team that drafts you and just play. I have yet to hear of someones career suffering from just playing hockey.

"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? ... Unfortunately, the Kings let their third liner go in the Mike Richards trade..."

"Unfortunately"? "UNFORTUNATELY"?

Excuse me, but what the bleep is "unfortunate" about winning the Stanley Cup for the first time in 45 years as a franchise?
- PhilipR

You don't seem to be trying very hard to understand what he meant. Obviously, he didn't mean that it was unfortunate that they won the Cup. The context of the article suggests that he simply meant that it was unfortunate that Simmonds wasn't given the opportunity to reach his potential in LA and was traded at only the value of a good, 15-goal 3rd-liner (and only the 2nd-best piece in the deal). Neither of those is necessarily wrong simply because the trade paid off for LA. The trade paying off was fortunate, but it could've been even more fortunate if LA had convinced Philadelphia to take another player, instead, or sweeten the pot (say, by throwing in a 2nd-rounder) because they were getting a better player than they thought.

Besides the value, it's "unfortunate" that a player that LA drafted and developed flourished only once he was wearing another team's colors. No fan likes to see that, regardless of how much he likes seeing his team win the Cup. It doesn't have to be one or the other. You can be happy with how the trade worked out, but still be saddened to see players go and have more success elsewhere.

Love you Jason.... but please cut down on the usage of "however." Thanks
- EvenEdge28

I'll definitely keep an eye out for it now!

You don't seem to be trying very hard to understand what he meant. Obviously, he didn't mean that it was unfortunate that they won the Cup. The context of the article suggests that he simply meant that it was unfortunate that Simmonds wasn't given the opportunity to reach his potential in LA and was traded at only the value of a good, 15-goal 3rd-liner (and only the 2nd-best piece in the deal). Neither of those is necessarily wrong simply because the trade paid off for LA. The trade paying off was fortunate, but it could've been even more fortunate if LA had convinced Philadelphia to take another player, instead, or sweeten the pot (say, by throwing in a 2nd-rounder) because they were getting a better player than they thought.

Besides the value, it's "unfortunate" that a player that LA drafted and developed flourished only once he was wearing another team's colors. No fan likes to see that, regardless of how much he likes seeing his team win the Cup. It doesn't have to be one or the other. You can be happy with how the trade worked out, but still be saddened to see players go and have more success elsewhere.

I get what Jason is saying. I just disagree with it. I didn't have second thoughts on the trade at the time and I sure don't have second thoughts on the trade in hindsight.

Simmonds was due to become an unrestricted free agent July 1st. So even without the benefit of hindsight, the Kings were acquiring Richards, a two-time 30 goal scorer, four-time 20 goal scorer and the leader of a team that in 2010 not only came back from a 3-0 game deficit against Boston in the playoffs, but went to the Stanley Cup Finals.

And with the benefit of hindsight? As I said, I’ll take those two Cups any day.

Furthermore, Jason got a few facts wrong, at least according to published stats by the NHL, and used "hindsight" to disparage the career to that point of Dustin Penner in an effort to perhaps score a few cheap points:

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.

Jason's correct there. According to the NHL, Simmonds played a grand total of 12:36 on the power play in 2009-10, which works out to an average of 9 seconds per game. He had zero power play points that season.

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…

Sorry, Jason. That's not correct. Again, according to the NHL, Simmonds played 67:35 on the power play in 2010-11, which works out to an average of 50 seconds per game. He had one power play point (a goal) that season.

And just for reference, in that year the Kings top 6 wing group included Ryan Smyth, Justin Williams, Dustin Brown....aaaaaand Dustin Penner?

I’d hardly call a guy (Penner) who played in all of 19 total games one of your "top 6" wingers over the course of a full season.

But in any case, when Penner came over from the Oilers on February 28th he had already put up 21 goals and 18 assists in 62 games so far that season, including 6 power play goals. Penner had scored 32 goals (9 on the PP) and 63 points the prior season for the Ducks and was a four-time 20 goal scorer.

Simmonds, as of February 28, had 11 goals and 12 assists in 60 games and was basically doing zilch with his limited power play time that was averaging just under a minute a game.

At the time they acquired Penner, the Kings were 37-20-4, sitting in third place in the Pacific with 78 points, which at the time would have been a 5th seed playoff spot in the Western Conference. They were 11 points behind division-leading San Jose, a point behind division foe and 4th seed Phoenix and two points ahead of 6th seed Colorado. A playoff berth was looking good, as Detroit and Dallas were tied for 9th and 10 points back of the Kings. But home ice for the first round was still up for grabs.

Forget about how their careers materialized from that point on. At that point in time just exactly what NHL: head coach would have played Simmonds on the power play ahead of Penner?

I liked the way Simmonds played for the Kings. I also liked the way Butch Goring played. And Larry Murphy. And Steve Duchesne. And Jimmy Carson. And Luc Robitaille. And Lubomir Visnovsky. Sure, you hate to see guys come up with the organization and show much promise only to get traded. Some having success elsewhere, others not. Not to mention others not even getting much of a chance of all, like Kevin Stevens.

But when a trade finally works out that results in not just a playoff berth or a finals appearance but two Stanley Cups? I'm not going to second-guess it in hindsight or say we "could have gotten more."

Was it "unfortunate" that the Red Sox couldn't have gotten more for Nomar Garciaparra in August 2004? No. It's only "unfortunate" that he wasn't able to get a ring in Boston. I'm not going to complain about that trade, either, years after the fact. Had they lost to the Yankees that October, then that would be a different story.

But when you have hindsight in your favor, I'm not going to sit back and say we should have gotten more.

I get what Jason is saying. I just disagree with it. I didn't have second thoughts on the trade at the time and I sure don't have second thoughts on the trade in hindsight.

Simmonds was due to become an unrestricted free agent July 1st. So even without the benefit of hindsight, the Kings were acquiring Richards, a two-time 30 goal scorer, four-time 20 goal scorer and the leader of a team that in 2010 not only came back from a 3-0 game deficit against Boston in the playoffs, but went to the Stanley Cup Finals.

And with the benefit of hindsight? As I said, I’ll take those two Cups any day.

Furthermore, Jason got a few facts wrong, at least according to published stats by the NHL, and used "hindsight" to disparage the career to that point of Dustin Penner in an effort to perhaps score a few cheap points:



Jason's correct there. According to the NHL, Simmonds played a grand total of 12:36 on the power play in 2009-10, which works out to an average of 9 seconds per game. He had zero power play points that season.



Sorry, Jason. That's not correct. Again, according to the NHL, Simmonds played 67:35 on the power play in 2010-11, which works out to an average of 50 seconds per game. He had one power play point (a goal) that season.



I’d hardly call a guy (Penner) who played in all of 19 total games one of your "top 6" wingers over the course of a full season.

But in any case, when Penner came over from the Oilers on February 28th he had already put up 21 goals and 18 assists in 62 games so far that season, including 6 power play goals. Penner had scored 32 goals (9 on the PP) and 63 points the prior season for the Ducks and was a four-time 20 goal scorer.

Simmonds, as of February 28, had 11 goals and 12 assists in 60 games and was basically doing zilch with his limited power play time that was averaging just under a minute a game.

At the time they acquired Penner, the Kings were 37-20-4, sitting in third place in the Pacific with 78 points, which at the time would have been a 5th seed playoff spot in the Western Conference. They were 11 points behind division-leading San Jose, a point behind division foe and 4th seed Phoenix and two points ahead of 6th seed Colorado. A playoff berth was looking good, as Detroit and Dallas were tied for 9th and 10 points back of the Kings. But home ice for the first round was still up for grabs.

Forget about how their careers materialized from that point on. At that point in time just exactly what NHL: head coach would have played Simmonds on the power play ahead of Penner?

I liked the way Simmonds played for the Kings. I also liked the way Butch Goring played. And Larry Murphy. And Steve Duchesne. And Jimmy Carson. And Luc Robitaille. And Lubomir Visnovsky. Sure, you hate to see guys come up with the organization and show much promise only to get traded. Some having success elsewhere, others not. Not to mention others not even getting much of a chance of all, like Kevin Stevens.

But when a trade finally works out that results in not just a playoff berth or a finals appearance but two Stanley Cups? I'm not going to second-guess it in hindsight or say we "could have gotten more."

Was it "unfortunate" that the Red Sox couldn't have gotten more for Nomar Garciaparra in August 2004? No. It's only "unfortunate" that he wasn't able to get a ring in Boston. I'm not going to complain about that trade, either, years after the fact. Had they lost to the Yankees that October, then that would be a different story.

But when you have hindsight in your favor, I'm not going to sit back and say we should have gotten more.
- PhilipR

Great comment overall my friend. Really enjoying the discussion you and our beloved Osprey are having.


Yes indeed, hindsight bats 1.000 and always will. Nature of the beast.

Loktionov was a bum when he hit the NHL. Moller's poor little shoulders couldn't take the abuse. Simmonds definetly gave the Kings a show because he ultimately had what it took to be packaged for Richards, who at the time was a top center in the game. Doughty was playing nearly 20 min a night as an 18 year old. If you are good enough you will play, plain and simple. If your team will win because you are on the top line, then you will be on the top line. Simmonds didn't spend much time in junior or minors really. He played.

Great comment overall my friend. Really enjoying the discussion you and our beloved Osprey are having.
- Jason_Lewis

You like how I defended you and felt weird doing it, huh? I figured that you would. I have to keep you on your toes somehow. If it's not by giving counter-arguments to your arguments, it's by defending you when you least expect it. My tactics have layers.