Another thing to add... There's a limit to what coaches can realistically do to "develop" players.
Despite some here (hi Sal) who compared Owen Beck to Ryan O'Reilly, no coach on earth can teach Owen Beck how to score or generate any kind of real offense at the NHL level. He simply doesn't have the talent. There are some things, such as hockey sense, that are God given. A coach can maybe improve it a little, but it usually is what it is.
Then it becomes a debate or discussion about, what exactly does an AHL coach do to "develop" players? When hockey "pundits" say he needs seasoning!, it's a broad and kind of dismissive way of approaching it because it doesn't mean anything specific beyond the player in question needs more experience.
Personally, my opinion on "development" at the AHL level has changed a lot recently. Of the draft picks we have, I'd only sign maybe 25% of them and get a bunch of AHL veterans to surround them, without cutting out the opportunities for the young players. I don't care about William Trudeau, no offense to him. I don't care about Xavier Simoneau, no offense to him. I care about Joshua Roy & Logan Mailloux. Those two are the players who, if they make the NHL, could have an impact with us. Developing long-shot prospects who might end up as fringe NHLers? Sorry, I think our energy would be best served focusing on the higher tier prospects.
The AHL has a rule in regards to the amount of veterans you can have, but I'd always have maximum possible. With the remaining spots, I might sound like Rejean Tremblay, but I'd probably sign the best overagers from the Q and have them play as depth forwards to fill out the quota. I'd get coaches to do much more focused on-ice skill training and off-ice tape study with the key prospects. If at the end of the ELC, they aren't NHL regulars, cut bait and try again.