He said he hasn't made up his mind yet, and that both candidates interviewed very well. An announcement will be made Thursday.
There's a lot to think about: Will one of them be here longer than the other would? Which form of recruiting is better, attracting players or attracting NHL affiliations? What about personality style? Which would communicate better with the fans? How about players from last year?
I think he realizes there's no wrong choice in this, but there is the potential for a great choice. There aren't too many times in life where you can have an opportunity like that.
Franke said the team also has a meeting set up with Kevin St. Pierre for this week, but there's no other news on players.
Comments
I honestly hope it does happen with many of the veterans. This league would improve if the average age drops considerably. You would have young guys with something to prove and a dream of advancement instead of 28-32 year olds playing out their careers until the reality of a real job becomes necessary. This leagues premise has always been to limit veterans and give guys out of college a place to play. With all of the cheating and back room dealing that has been going on the last few years the young guys keep getting pushed further out.
Think of how much energy these guys the Komets get at the end of the season right out of college bring. Imagine rosters full of these guys. Sure they are going to make mistakes out of lack of experience. But it won't be due to lack of hustle.
Why would ANY of last year's players move to the LNAH? Not their kind of league.
Again, I ask: What's the story (if any) between Chaulk and Duhart not liking each other? Anyone?
Komet Warrior: You'd think there would be a line of players stretching from here to Hoffman Estates to play for the "best coach in the UHL." Please explain why there isn't. THANK YOU. MAN.
JM-My wife asked about Lawson too. I figure he's waiting to see what unfolds in the free agent market. He was under contract with Colorado and may still have aspirations of the NHL.
Tony- There was one thing in "ILH" post that I just could not agree with. That was the statment that St. Pierre is a "proven winner". I just have a problem with that statment because as I look at what I call a "proven winner" I always try to ask this question, have they won a playoff championship? Can I call St. Pierre one of the best goaltenders in the UHL? Yes! IS St. Pierre one of the best Komet goaltenders of all-time? Yes! Is he a "proven winner"? NO! St. Pierre has not won in the play-offs to my knowledge and he certainly hasn't done it with the Komets. Blake, you can tell Ben Smith for me that I don't think it's a "lame excuse". Dan Marino was one of the best quaterbacks in the NFL and yet I do not consider him a "proven winner" beacause he did not win the Super Bowl.
I know Hugo Bleanger singed to play in the LNAH and I thought I saw Robin Big Snake although I would not be surprised to see him go there.
Greg,
St. Pierre did indeed win a championship. He won it with the Mudbugs in the CHL back a few years..i think maybe like 2000 or somewhere around there.
Greg/Mark it goes back to a performance based business. You can't pay a guy for what he did in 2000. I agree he is a quality goalie. But for anyone to think the Komets "owe" him (or anyone else for that matter) anything is absurd.
What this is with Chaulk, St Pierre and many other players their age is a situation where the player realizes his career is near end and they only have a year or two left to make as much money as possible. So loyalty goes out the window.
I never said they should pay him for what he did in 2000, St Pierre is a quality goaltender..what he gets paid is his business, I just want to see the best possible team on the Ice..if that means St Pierre is in net, thats fine by me. Same with Chaulk, I want to see the best possible team.
Besides, Greg didn't think he won a championship, I was just pointing out that he did.
Mark I know, I was just elbowing my way into your conversation lol.
I have to disagree/question you on one thing you said. You said that it is his business what he makes. That is true to a point but with the salary cap it isn't that simple. That being said, he will get whatever a teams management is willing to pay him. I just don't want to see management take up too much cap space on one or two players. I don't think you can build that way in a hard cap league. The Pistons learned that with Ben Wallace, the Colts with Edge etc.
Mark- 98-99 and the Mudbugs were part of the WPHL. I don't know if that's enough for me to call St. Pierre a "proven winner". It's been 7 years and he hasn't done it in the UHL.
I just thought of something Tony, we're not even sure that money is an issue with St. Pierre, all we know is that the Frankes initally said that St.Pierre was not in their plans for this coming season and now he's got an interview. The only question of money seems to be with Chaulk.
You might be right Greg. I based my opinion on the theory that Chaulk/Drouin/St Pierre were most likely the top paid guys on the team last year. Weren't they the three that had extended contracts?
I was joking on the other thread when I said I would handle a negotiation with a "take it or leave it" but maybe the Komets knew firmly they were not going to pay him nearly what he made last year so they terminated the contract and he went elsewhere to look and see what a 30's goalie with injury problems could make.
Like I said this could be the old "grass greener" situation. Who knows? It is a very interesting situation. I continue to have complete confidence that Komets management has a plan and this team is heading in the right direction.
Greg,
I believe what Chaulk wants is a no-trade clause and mgmt. is not giving it to him.
The funny thing is, Chualk is the only one the Komets said up front they wanted back, yes they want his contract re-worked and Colin doesn't sound happy about it. Kevin was TOLD he was not in the direction the Komets were heading in for this coming year, Granted he's a golatender not a skater so that didn't quite seem to make sense to me. We heard almost nothing on Drouin until, and I think it Justin, it was written that they were trying to negotiate with Colin and PC. What I found interesting is that when the Frankes brought in players for meetings, PC was not one of them, that's when I thought we weren't going to see him again.
To finish my thought on St. Pierre, I don't who initated the interview and up to this moment I have no idea what it's about so I'm not going to get that excited about it.
Hobo-and your getting this info from who/where?
Skate. Who told you that Coach Puhalski has no players yet for the Hoffman team? YOu see no source=no info. Got it MAN? Whaty you are doing is using rumors to make your point. I am sure he has players that they dont want to announce just yet. Not wise to tell the other teams who they got.
Everyone take a step back, relax and look at the schedule which is amazingly good.
Komet Warrior......Welcome back...MAN!
At least we only have to see Puhalskis brand of hockey a handful of times this year....
Greg, I heard about this St. Pierre-Komets talk (from a friend that will remain unnamed of course) a few days ago and then the blog about St. Pierre in talks with the Franke's was posted which confirmed my what my friend had said. I heard that it was the Franke's who contacted him. I know that the Franke's wanted him but it was Puhalski who didn't. So i would imagine Franke's made the move and contacted St. Pierre.
Ok lets say they bring Frenchy back. Then lets make it clear that the starting position is not locked up and that both goalies will play on a regular basis...so as to not let one get stale opening the gates. I am sure that Reiter will do just fine as i liked him when he played against us. Plus he would benifit greatly from tips from Kevin. As far as who it was that sent Kevin packing i think it is quite clear that it wasnt the Frankes, hench the meeting coming up! Have a good one all! Tim
Wow... it looks like Greg had a pretty tight grip on the Frankes. I mean who was the GM Dave Franke or Puhalski?
Starting to sound like Puhalski was a complete control freak.
Thats what I'm gathering to JR..
Maybe this will be a reality check to all players not to get so "comfortable". Nobody is above the team. Honestly they really can't hand Kevin the starting job. They can only assure him that he can compete for the job. As for who starts yhat is normally up to the coach. Management chooses and gives the coach the players. But it is the coach who delegates playing time.
Maybe this will be a reality check to all players not to get so "comfortable". Nobody is above the team. Honestly they really can't hand Kevin the starting job. They can only assure him that he can compete for the job. As for who starts yhat is normally up to the coach. Management chooses and gives the coach the players. But it is the coach who delegates playing time.
Something just occured to me. Guys help me with the timeline.
Wasn't it said that Puhalski knew he was leaving for some time before it was official?
When did that time frame happen in relation to St Pierre being "cut"?
If in fact Puhalski knew he was leaving why would he have been the one forcing Frenchy out? Why would management have let him? What would have taken so long for this meeting to take place? Something doesn't make sense.
I think it would be a waste of a vet spot if you bring in St. Pierre and not give him the #1 job. The potential for teams to be stacked with quality vets doesnt leave room for a vet riding the bench as back-up goalie. I do, however, agree that you dont let your back-up goalie only see 5-8 games for the year. Build a solid team where the goalie doesnt believe that he has to hold the other team to under 2 goals every nite to be able to win...
That is true. When Kurk and Masters played regular the last couple of years they played much better than when they played 2 times a month. I was a backup the last 3 years I played competitivly and it is much harder than starting every night.
With Frenchy and his injuries, he can't play as much as he has been or he will continue to break down. One of the few things I was critical with Puhalski last season was the resting of St Pierre at the end of the season. At that point it was useless and all it did was throw him off. The backup should play once every 3-4 games. If they keep Reiter then it should easly be every 3rd because the kid is a very capable goaltender.
Greg,
No names will be mentioned but it is an aquintance of his.
Hobo I don't want to argue with you but
a no trade clause in this league is absurd when contracts are not guaranteed. Or am I missing something?