In response to Bookboy007's comment:
MacDermid played 6:40. Before that meaningless goal,
he was a -1 for the game
. So in under 6 minutes of ice time,
he was on for a goal against. The meaningless goal pulled him even
So MacDermid was the reason Dallas got scored on ? The goal Lane scored was lucky ?
He's a 4th liner that is only oging to get about 9mins but still managed to score. That is real good and a bonus to what his real job is.
He's not going to get 9 minutes. Apparently he's going to get 2:36 because, goal or no goal, he's going to do something for a coach not named Julien and get his kiester stapled to the bench because he's not a very good hockey player.
Say what you want about Pandolfo - Claude put him in 16 games ago to stabilize a third line that was neither scoring nor stopping others from scoring. At least they stabilized the defensive side - Caron is even over a similar stretch.
Yah that's the idea keep it at ZERO instead of developing a better offensive weapon.
Don't confuse incremental improvement with the ultimate goal. And don't confuse MacDermid scoring two goals in two games with him being an offensive weapon. He hit double digits in goals once in junior and never again.
I have no issue with the way this team handles prospects right now. They don't think Spooner is well suited to the 3rd line in terms of his development or his contribution to the big club. So he is honing his top-six game in Providence. Yeah, you can chuck a guy in and see if he sinks or swims, but you have to live with him sinking and costing you games - because let's be honest, if Claude puts Spooner in and plays him for 8-10 minutes, those who criticize him now will still criticize him for "not giving the kid a real chance" even though "a real chance" isn't something his play warrants.
Marchand played his way up starting on the 4th eventually becoming the #1 scorer for the Bruins. There goes the theory of letting a prospect go play back on the 1st line in the minors.
Because he earned it with the level of his play in a fourth line role in the NHL, not with his play in the AHL. I don't understand what's so difficult about the idea that the coach looks at him in drills, watches him battle on the boards, puts him in exhibition games, and thinks yes, he can contribute or no, he's not ready. Why does it have to be 20 games of meaningful ice before you feel a guy "got a chance"?
When has a prospect cost the Bruins a game ?
This is partly my point, isn't it? It doesn't happen very often because Julien, rather than throw a guy in the deep end, tries to put prospects in roles where they have the best chance to succeed. But Hamilton had an awful game recently where the consensus was he looked like a 19yr old rookie and was burned on two key goals on which the game turned. And that's Hamilton.
When prospects haven't shown they're on the cusp? They need to put in the time to earn a regular role. Hamill didn't. Arniel didn't. The right prospects are working their way into the lineup. The ones who don't have it are gone.
That's right Hamill didn't but he still got a shot, Arniel did prove he could score in the AHL and got one shot now that's concistency.
What more was Arniel supposed to do in the minors ?
How about show he wasn't a one-year wonder? That he could continue to develop since he was patently not ready when he played in exhibition games and in his one call-up. 'Cause he sure as the Berlin Polar Bears didn't do those things, and now he plays in Germany. They gave up on him, SD. After only two years. What does that tell you?
If Kelly and Peverley can't get out of their funk the next two years of their contract(s) how long do Spooner, Cunningham, KoKo, Camara, Camper and possibly Griffith have to wait ?
First thing all of these guys have to do is earn a shot by showing they can help the Bruins win more than Kelly or Peverley. That's not a certainty. But if Spooner comes in next year and dominates camp by playing really well, Chiapete has repeatedly shown he can move guys out so that the Bruins can maximize their talent level. He's willing to take a lesser return to do it. If Spooner shows he can be a responsble and productive 3rd line C, he'll get a chance. Cunningham and Camper haven't shown that they're NHL capable as third and fourth liners, and I don't think you're looking for them to replace anyone in the top six, are you? Same will be true of Khokhlachev and Griffith - they're offensive guys who will need to play an offensive role or they'll look like Caron - meaning you won't know what they look likke because they'll be invisible.
And if they're just "waiting" instead of doing everything they can to improve their games and earn NHL plying time, that might be the problem. The NHL is cut-throat. If these kids can show that they help Claude pad his resume better than Pandolfo, they'll be there. But none of them has. They waited a month to play Pandolfo and none of the available guys showed he was able to play better than JP. They made room for a prospect and played Bourque and he crapped the bed. And there has been a gaping hole in the roster ever since.
The whol two years ? What's the use of spending all that money on the draft ?
Why should Jacobs work millions of dollars into the Bruins scouting/drafting budget if Julien just wants veterans like Kelly and Peverley for his coach ?
Doesn't the Jagr trade answer this question for you?