Jump to content

Casey Mittlestadt has been sent to Amerks


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Zamboni said:

To me, he looks like a inconsistent developing young player. Nothing too alarming IMO. If he’s making the same frequency of mistakes next season AND the following season, then I’ll start to have a little concern. My prediction is next season he’ll still make those mistakes, just less of them. And that’s due to developing and experience. At 21 ... there’s almost no chance he doesn’t develop and improve. Who the heck honestly thinks a 21 year old player won’t.

Except a whole lot of 21 year olds don't improve to become NHLers. The majority don't. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Casey’s past of playing mostly against inferior competition shaped him into a player whose game is built around beating people one-on-one.

His future will largely depend on how well he develops his ability to create and prevent two-on-ones.

7 minutes ago, TrueBlueGED said:

Except a whole lot of 21 year olds don't improve to become NHLers. The majority don't. 

Fortunately, the majority picked in the top 10, however, do.

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

At this point, I feel the same way about Mitts that I felt about Nylander:  he has some skill but probably not enough skill, will or hockey IQ to be an effective top-6 NHL player, and we should adjust expectations, and roster plans, accordingly.

However, also like Nylander, he is young, not expensive and under team control for a while -- so there is no rush to make a decision on him.  If someone offers a Jokiharju-level asset for him, I would pull the trigger, and I wouldn't hesitate to include him in a package for Cirelli or other strong 2C candidate, but I wouldn't dump him for a lower-level asset.

In the meantime he should stay in Rochester and learn the game.

  • Like (+1) 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Casey’s past of playing mostly against inferior competition shaped him into a player whose game is built around beating people one-on-one.

His future will largely depend on how well he develops his ability to create and prevent two-on-ones.

Fortunately, the majority picked in the top 10, however, do.

I'm not sure that's accurate. After pick #3, the success rate is basically a coin flip. An article a few years back pegged picks 4-15 as equally likely to produce a half point per game NHLer, on average. And now that Casey is 3 years past his draft year, we can probably stop using his draft position as a good indicator of how he projects as a player. 

Substantively, I'm exactly where @nfreeman is at on Mittelstadt. And for the purposes of asset utilization, I think it's better to accept some risk and decide a year early on a player than a year late when the league has caught up. If I were GM I'd be actively looking to move him this offseason in a package, but I'm not dumping him for a 4th or anything like that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, TrueBlueGED said:

I'm not sure that's accurate. 

It is. It’s hard to define NHLer, but I’m using an arbitrary multiple seasons as an unquestioned regular.

2006 8/10 (the two misses played 297 and 394 games, respectively)

2007 8/10

2008 9/10

2009 9/10

2010 9/10

2011 10/10

2012 7/10

2013 10/10

2014 8/10 (Dal Colle and Fleury still might)

2015 10/10

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

And I’m basically on the same page as @nfreeman in terms of what to do about him, even if I tend to be more bullish on his ability to turn things around.

The kid had close to 40 NHL points before he turned 21. That’s not something to be discounted.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, WildCard said:

I feel like we're giving up on Casey way too early. We rushed him into the NHL, and now he needs a more seasoning as a result in the AHL. Give him a full year down there then let's see. 

What if I framed it for you differently: I am not giving up on Casey's potential NHL utility. However, given the state of our roster, I deem it worth attaching high value assets to him to functionally "upgrade" him to what we'd like him to become someday, but right now. 

An example would be the proposal I put together last summer, that Hoss called the worst one he's ever seen on these boards. Risto, Mittelstadt, Borgen and 7 for Cirelli, Cernak and Foote

But it could involve fewer players than this. Find a team that wants to blow it up and start over, and offer Mitts and our first 

5 minutes ago, dudacek said:

And I’m basically on the same page as @nfreeman in terms of what to do about him, even if I tend to be more bullish on his ability to turn things around.

The kid had close to 40 NHL points before he turned 21. That’s not something to be discounted.

28 points per 82 games isn't something to discount, but it's not something to be impressed by either

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Randall Flagg said:

What if I framed it for you differently: I am not giving up on Casey's potential NHL utility. However, given the state of our roster, I deem it worth attaching high value assets to him to functionally "upgrade" him to what we'd like him to become someday, but right now. 

An example would be the proposal I put together last summer, that Hoss called the worst one he's ever seen on these boards. Risto, Mittelstadt, Borgen and 7 for Cirelli, Cernak and Foote

But it could involve fewer players than this. Find a team that wants to blow it up and start over, and offer Mitts and our first 

28 points per 82 games isn't something to discount, but it's not something to be impressed by either

I'd be much more amenable to that, but it really all depends on the package. I liked Casey a lot when we drafted him, and now two years later it just feels like we could be moving on from something really good prematurely. But, with Cozens in the pipeline, if we can trade Casey for a ~23 year old, actual Center, that has proven he can play in the NHL at a high level, then yeah we can't just ignore that because we liked Casey when we first drafted him

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Randall Flagg said:

 

28 points per 82 games isn't something to discount, but it's not something to be impressed by either

Not really, but it is 3rd line centre production and he did that at 20.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Not really, but it is 3rd line centre production and he did that at 20.

with his 100% offensive zone usage hehe

you could take everything we've said about Mitts to date and replace it with the name Tyson Jost and we'd probably feel a lot less excited about it in that context 

Edited by Randall Flagg
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, WildCard said:

I feel like we're giving up on Casey way too early. We rushed him into the NHL, and now he needs a more seasoning as a result in the AHL. Give him a full year down there then let's see. 

Agreed about giving up on him too early.  At this point, would keep him in Ra-cha-cha for the rest of this year.  Will give him a chance to earn the 3C in TC, but would have Johansson/ Lazar penciled in ahead if him for that role (hopefully Botterill has brought in a real 2C by then, so there is actual competition for the 3C role).

If he earns it out of camp, keep him up.  If not, let him start the year in Ra-cha-cha and bring him up when the injury bug &/ or his play dictate it.

Asplund will be pushing for that job as well.  And Cozens will be pushing for a spot in the top 12 also.

Kind of nice that if they bring back Girgensons and Larsson and also get a 2C, they will have serious competition for the last 3-4 spots on the roster.  And nobody will be forced to play above their skill grade.

(Hoping they fix the GT as well so that will be true for all 23 spots on the opening night roster.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Randall Flagg said:

Don't you usually take issue with pi's TRPM? Because you're literally using exactly that right now hehe

True. That is exactly what I did. 

1 hour ago, nfreeman said:

At this point, I feel the same way about Mitts that I felt about Nylander:  he has some skill but probably not enough skill, will or hockey IQ to be an effective top-6 NHL player, and we should adjust expectations, and roster plans, accordingly.

However, also like Nylander, he is young, not expensive and under team control for a while -- so there is no rush to make a decision on him.  If someone offers a Jokiharju-level asset for him, I would pull the trigger, and I wouldn't hesitate to include him in a package for Cirelli or other strong 2C candidate, but I wouldn't dump him for a lower-level asset.

In the meantime he should stay in Rochester and learn the game.

Morgan Frost

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have higher hopes for Casey now than I would have for a player in a similar situation 4 or five years ago because I believe Rochester is finally a good farm club for the Sabres.

It took Pegula buying it and Botterill a few years to turn it around but it is an asset to the parent club that it hasn't been in well over a decade.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, WildCard said:

He looks to be in a similar boat to Casey. What's the difference there?

He's 6 months younger, skates better, and hasn't spent the last 2 years being a below average pro.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...