kipwinger

Mantha has played more of his career with better players. Before Larkin he played with Zetterberg. AA has never consistently played with a quality center. Edit: In addition, AA has averaged about 2.5 minutes less in ice time per game than Mantha. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that if you give AA 2.5 more minutes per night, with top end players, his goal scoring would be substantially higher than Mantha's given how close it is currently without the quality linemates and minutes.

AA has 2 fewer career goals than Mantha despite consistently playing with worse players. So it seems like what you're saying is that even if he played with Larkin and Bert (which you agree would make a difference) it wouldn't account for 2 goals over a whole career? C'mon man, even you aren't that dumb.

Didn't realize their careers were only one season long? Do the math on the rest of their careers and you'll see a very different story emerge. Also, you think maybe AA would score more with Larkin and Bertuzzi as his linemates every night?

Who asked you to take my opinions seriously? I'm not over here begging for your approval man. I gave you my reasons for thinking Zadina is limited, which basically boil down to "he can only consistently generate offense in one way". You're welcome to refute it, ignore it, or whatever. I don't care too much. But when you say, "Tatar's his floor" without providing any rationale your opinion becomes just as suspect as you're saying mine is.

I did say he had more upside than Larkin. I was wrong. Sue me. However, I only said he was a better SCORER than Mantha. Which I stand behind. He has consistently scored more goals, in fewer minutes, with worse linemates than Mantha.

Oh now you're resorting to name calling rather than just admitting you were wrong? Sad. He may rack up a few more assists than Tatar, but essentially they're the same. Zadina plays too much on the perimeter and he's not fast enough to be dominant in transition. So basically his scoring is limited to the powerplay and/or whatever his linemates gift him. Dominant top line wingers score in a multitude of ways. I just don't see it with Zadina.

So you admit that I stated my opinion as such? Once you've admitted that then we can move on to why I wasn't talking about points when I say that Hughes is dominating.

I literally said "my opinion" in the post. Try harder. Oh, then easily Seider. I think Zadina is basically going to be another Tatar. Which is super useful for a contender to have. While I'm not sure how good Seider is going to be, he's proven me wrong so far, and I now don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that he could be a Seth Jones type workhorse. I'd keep him around for that kind of upside alone.

I kid, I kid. I need clarity on the question. Are you asking, "who would you rather have up from GR right now, Seider or Zadina?" or is the question "If only one of these guys were in our organization and the other had to disappear, which would you keep?".

Is "neither" an option?

Oh sorry, I thought my opinion was clear. Hughes will be WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY better than Zadina. Why? Because superstars tend to dominate the league as soon as they come into it, like Hughes is doing. Think about this, you constantly say all the time that defensemen take longer to develop. So Hughes isn't even close to as good as he's going to be later, and he's already dominating the league as a rookie. Conversely, forwards peak earlier (according to your rationale) so Zadina is closer to his ceiling than Hughes, and he's basically a top six foward at this point.

It's was figure of speech. I wanted you to stop equivocating. You've done so, good job. You should do that more often instead of saying "well, it's just my opinion" or "I wouldn't be surprised if...". You can't walk this one back. If Hughes because a superstar and Zadina doesn't then you have to own it now.

Never easy to sacrifice something you love, but I'm glad you're stepping up like a man.

Awww s***...It's an ab off! Also, why is dieting and exercising a function of you being "psycho"? Aren't you just, like, supposed to do that stuff?

I love how "I wouldn't be surprised" has become your new way to straddle the fence. Why not put your money where your mouth is and commit to something? Yes or no, do you think Zadina will be the better player?

Me: Why would Arizona need Hall to help make the playoffs when they probably will anyway? NyquistIsDURRRRFuture: I DURRDN'T REALIZE PLAYOFFS SPOTS WERE GUARANTEEEEEEEEEEED IN DECEMBER *mouthbreathing*!!!!!!!! Me: I mean, check the standings, they're already doing pretty good without him. DURRRQUISTISMYFAHDURR: OH YEAH, DA BIG BAD COYOTES WON DURR CUP ALREADY IN DECEMBER HUH!?!?! Me: Nah dude, they're just probably going to make the playoffs so that doesn't seem like why they traded for Hall. DERPQUISTDERPFUTTTER: I'M DUN WIT DIS, VIKTURY IS MINE!!! ... ... ... F.Michael: Aliens Bruh!

You realize that even if you took the top 8 teams in the entire league, not just each conference, the Coyotes would still be tied for a playoff spot. Not trying to get your goat here man, but the "they did it to get into the playoffs" explaination for the Hall trade is just missing the mark.

I'm looking at the standings that have the Coyotes comfortably in the playoffs. You know, the official league standings. Which standings are you looking at?

I agree with the first part, just not the second part. Trading for a star player and former MVP is always going to excite the fans no matter who trades for the player. But the Yotes are tied for 3rd in the Western Conference and will comfortably make the playoffs even without Hall.

Yeah, probably time for a new narrative. If the team hasn't "folded" in the 23 years it's been around previous to now, I'm guessing that's probably not the reason they traded for Hall.

Save the franchise? From what?

I'm confused, you said we should take "BPA" and that we need "elite" talent. There's an elite goalie who's likely to be the BPA when we pick, so we should take him right? Or are you suggesting that Askarov could be the BPA and we shouldn't take him anyway because of his position? Because that sounds a lot like what I'm advocating with Byfield. Also, there's no reason to think Lafreniere is anything more than your average top of the draft player. The same things you're saying about Lafreniere now were said by others, more knowledgeable than you, about guys like Dahlin. They were wrong, and are wrong, routinely when they do this. Ray Ferraro, for instance, said of Dahlin, “The kid is a prodigy, He’s the Auston Matthews or Connor McDavid of defensemen if we can compare him to the last couple of drafts.” Just a quick google search will provide reems and reems of such comments. So when you say, Lafreniere is "on a different level" I don't know upon what rational basis you've made that conclusion.

You're speaking out of both sides of your mouth. You say that we should take the best, most special, player we can get but have routinely balked at the idea of picking the Russian goalie Askarov despite the fact that pretty much everyone agrees he's "special" and WAY better than his peers. So if we should take the best player, because we need elite talent, then if we don't get Lafreniere we should draft Askarov right? Dude, Dahlin was literally called the "greatest defensive prospect EVER" and the "Connor McDavid of Defensemen". You're downplaying it now to win debate points. He was HYPED! to the f"cking moon.

I'm not talking about the #10 pick. Given our current trajectory we'll pick no worse than 4th. And in the context of the Lafreniere vs. Byfield discussion we're talking about 1-2 overall. For all intents and purposes the #1 pick is not a "safer" pick than the #2 or #3 picks. If there's a difference in likelihood of playing in the NHL between top five picks, it's probably minuscule. Using a previous example, it's not like Svechnikov was a riskier pick than Dahlin because he wasn't the consensus #1 guy, or even Zadina or Tkachuk. They were all always going to be NHLers. And speaking of Dahlin... Any scouting which concluded (as they all did) that there was a giant rift between him and Quinn Hughes was not only wrong about Dahlin, but was also wrong about Hughes given how things have played out so far. Even if they end up having similarly brilliant careers the scouting would have been wrong because NOBODY thought that was possible. And if all that's true, then why would anybody have any faith in these scouting reports the next time they say someone is WAY better than someone else? In recent memory only McDavid and Matthews were top ranked prospects who turned into obviously better players than the next few guys after them. Otherwise it's usually not that clear cut, which wouldn't be a big deal except that all year long everyone makes it out to be clear cut. I wish I had a dollar for every person who said Leon Draisaitl wasn't in the same tier as Aaron Ekblad, or Quinn Hughes wasn't in the same tier as Dahlin. And it's not like these are guys that came out of left field. They're brilliant hockey players who nevertheless were not on the same plane as the top guy because the top guy is the top guy.

Using your rationale I could just say, "I think he's close to Lafreniere because everything I've seen or read has him as the next best ranked prospect". Then add the fact that he's younger and plays a harder position with more responsibility and he might even be closer than that. But that's not the point I've been making for two pages now. The point I'm making is that despite the fact that Byfield isn't better than Lafreniere now (which is empirically true) he is probably a better pick for Detroit because he fills a need, and may turn out to be the better player at this peak.