Re: LSSU hockey 2013-14
I echo these sentiments, as the saying goes, no one ever grows up dreaming of being a 4th line player. I understand where Bill and others are coming from in that it is "unsavory" for Lake State to get a rep for cutting players for not playing up to snuff, and I do agree with it. However I feel the need to point out the fact that I find it highly unlikely that Wees was "cut"....one person insinuates that and suddenly everyone is running with it, are we not forgetting about Ravn?? This is a player that was brought in that Roque has made it glaringly obvious had/has no chance of figuring into the Lakers plans....if JR was in the business of cutting players why would Ravn not be the first to go??? He's holding a spot in a position where there are 3 players all in the same class year, and eliminating him from the team and thus opening a roster spot for a younger goalie that we could use in the future (instead of sitting where we do now, with no goalie that is eligible beyond this coming season) would be at the front of the line as far regarding "who to cut" is concerned.
To address Bill saying that he would consider Wees "cut" if Roque told him that he wouldn't likely see much playing time, to that I disagree. There have been many "fringe players" on the Lakers roster over the past few years, guys that played sparingly early in their career and didn't really project to be one of the Lakers better players going forward. Some decided to leave (Ben Kitzmiller), some decided to stay and never really got much playing time at all (Brian Cooper) and some decided to stay and eventually got some quality minutes at the end of their careers (Kyle Pobur, Brett Wall). the bottom line is that when a player finds himself in such a situation it is up to him as far as how he wants to play the hand he has been dealt, there are options, and it's up to the player to decide what he thinks is best for him, but I don't necessarily think that a player in said situation who decides to depart the team as quote unquote "cut". There are always players who will be without a chair more often than not when the music stops, and regardless of the case of TJ Wees or not, I think every division 1 team will always have players in that position....that is simply the nature of the beast.
Some coaches consider that their job is to bring in many players and are free to dump them without ever trying to develop them or keeping their word or just respecting the guy who has done his part (as just proper player development and team management) .
Some will argue it is wise opportunism, common practice or normal business, but however you put it, it is at least lying and lack of respect which aren't usually big success factors. Fine !
Wees and Ainsworth as many others have been through the same ongoing story. They were recruited and stuck there, and told to stay sharp.
At some point, attempts are made to freeze the player out to free some space for fresh meat and if he doesn’t get it, he is clearly told that he is “welcome” to hang around 2-3 extra years, but will never see ice time ... so, yes, it is their decision.
They are suggested to leave and have fun somewhere else, implying they can't do any better.
That's what happened to Wees and Ainsworth.
Raven is not a good example. There is no doubt that the coach has been trying to freeze him out since the very first day. For some reason, he had changed his plans and had no intention to keep his word. Last season prove an active intention to keep him off the ice at any cost, and he didn’t need to be told that he would never play. His two interviews of the radio shows this season were quite explicit.
However, the guy is graduating in engineering where he is doing great and has an excellent reputation. He is known to be very competitive and resilient so it is unlikely that he would drop-off and jeopardize his studies because of a fishy coach. So far, he hasn’t given the coach any excuse for cutting him based on attitude, and his ability to play is a touchy subject according to a lot of people, including his direct competitors.
Cutting Barchuk was far-fetched enough, according to the rest of the team. If cut, raven would get immediate support from a the engineering department holding a list of their student-athletes who went through a comparable experience. Being very involved in local community events, he could expect support from the student community and from a number of teammates (not all for obvious reasons), including alumnus, and several things might surface. What a mess on the campus.
When the team wins, nobody bothers about what is going on behind the scene, or sometimes in the shower room. It is unlikely that the current state of the program would grant any such immunity. Ravn really had no reason to worry about being cut.
Having three seniors is really a one of many team management problems, and there is little doubt that the pressure on raven has been intense. At some point, someone stopped thinking and it turned personal.
Now it looks really stupid but, let's stay positive, as it will definitely be next year's excuse :-D
So no, Roque doesn't cut, or only exceptionally. it is the players’ decision to leave or have horrible time, as those who decide to stay will find out that the coach can keep a promise.
At some point this leaks out in many ways, and it doesn't help the reputation of the program, let alone various complaints or claims arising down the road.
It is nice to have a "farm team" in town, but personal relationship and reputations have a greater influence on so called hockey decisions when the team is close.
Roque won’t deal with many people who happen to be parents of the players, and some players/parents will only have the Lakers as a last choice because of what they have heard.
Someone who doesn’t care about the players cannot expect the players to care about him. It is their decision to listen or not.
