kipwinger

More or less valuable than a 4th line plug? But again...loyalty ya know? I get it.

Me too, could have been the next Jari Kurri.

Had to acquire him first. I'm told an extension is in the works.

Man, when are the Red Wings going to stop with all these loyalty moves. Just because you drafted a guy, or signed him as an FA years ago, doesn't mean you have to keep bringing them back if they suck amirite?

Seems a little like another Abdelkader to me. Edit: You'll all remember Erne from his bout with noted Red Wings tough guy Andreas Athanasiou in 2017. It was a draw, so apparently he fights as well as Abby does too.

If Seider ends up only being as good as Brandon Carlo then Steve Yzerman should be fired. You don't take "Brandon Carlo" types with the 6th overall pick. If he's not a Colton Paryako at least, and a Seth Jones at most, then it's a wasted pick in a crucial year.

I mean, he took a lot of head shots over his career. A WHOLE bunch just in the 2002 series again Vancouver alone. So I wouldn't count on it.

He was already downgraded to, like, a video coach or something like that. He was in a much more minor role. Houda and Bylsma are the primary assistant coaches.

Well, I'd clarify one point which is that offense (points) and possession (shots attempts) aren't the same thing. One can score a lot and have bad possession metrics, such as AA. Or you can have really good possession metrics and rarely score (Brendan Smith). So you can't really use possession metrics as evidence that a player is better offensively, it only indicates who has the puck more when they're on the ice. That caveat aside... Usage, zone starts, linemates all impact possession numbers. Possession metrics are all predicated on shots, or shot attempts. So all things being equal, having better linemates, starting more in the offensive zone, or simply shooting more yourself should all increase one's possession metrics. AA has really good offensive numbers, and really poor possession metrics because he doesn't shoot much and typically has poor linemates. He does generally get favorable zone starts though not as much as Mantha. Mantha has much higher possession metrics (again, this simply means adjusted shot attempts), in large part because he shoots a lot more, but also because he plays with some of the better shot generators on the team (Larkin and Bert). Though it should be noted that just like they contribute to Mantha's shot generation, he contributes to theirs as well. Finally, Mantha is HEAVILY sheltered in terms of zone starts. Only Frk and Vanek started in the offensive zone more than Mantha. This, probably more than anything else, explains why Mantha's possession numbers are so high. Pretty easy to generate shots when you don't have to go 200 feet to do so. Another caveat, don't infer causation where it doesn't exist. Mantha is a good offensive player (and bad defensive one), who's especially good on the cycle, so of course he gets a lot of offensive zone starts and as a result gets a bump in his possession metrics. But that's the way it's supposed to go. It's a little like saying, "well So-and-so is only good because he's on the powerplay". Sure, but he wouldn't be on the powerplay if he wasn't a good offensive player ya know? Mantha has essentially no utility outside of the offensive zone (the same is basically true of AA as well, but less so), so he's only used there. But he's pretty good there. So he sees a bump in his possession metrics, but that isn't the cause of his offensive. It's the result of his being good offensively. It's just the cause of his good possession numbers.

There are actually stats which can put this whole debate to rest pretty easily because the NHL adjusts for scoring per/60. So you don't have to speculate who would be better if so and so played the same number of games as the other guy. G/60: Over the last three years AA has been better than Mantha every year in goals/60. Typically by a pretty wide margin. AA also scores more on way fewer shots as well, which is probably another indication that he's a better goal scorer. A/60: Mantha has the advantage in assists/60 over the three years, also by a wide margin, so he's pretty obviously better at generating assists P/60: In '17 and '18 Mantha led in points/60, while AA led in points/60 in 2019. These figures, for obvious reasons, are much closer. So thems the facts. And since both of them suck defensively, I'd say it's pretty clear cut which player does what better. Both are WAY better at one particular thing, and both have the same noticeable holes in their games. The idea that either of them is a significantly better all around player is dumb. The facts just don't support that.

Make no mistake about it, we're going to suck this season. Yzerman has basically indicated as much through his (in)actions. Even if ALL of the young guys (Larkin, Mantha, Bert, AA, Hronek) take a step forward there's only so much better that they're going to be. And literally every other problem we had a year ago is still a problem this year. No quality centers after Larkin, a defense full of pylons (and Filip Hronek), same powerplay, same coaches, same everything. Well, that and the addition of an over the hill Filppula and a defenseman who can't generate any offense. It still remains to be seen whether or not team will turn it around in the long term, but this season is going to be just as abysmal as last year. Matter of fact, I think Steve-o is counting on it.

If you exclude Nyquist and Tatar we didn't have much luck ANYWHERE from about 2005-2013. The only two real successes we had during that time were European.

We haven't had much luck in Europe since 2005-6?

Am being told he found his true calling in another professional sports league.

You asked the question.

You know that "bigness" isn't a hockey skill right? You also know that we've been drafting really big dudes for like 5 years right?

I KNEW IT! "Cuz he big" IS the reason for this whole absurd scenario. You got me man. If we ignore all the other big and/or tough and/or gritty guys on this team who ARE good at hockey then we've really got nobody like Mike McCarron. You win. And obviously having a HUGE scorer who isn't good at scoring but is good at hitting (?) is a key component to any Cup winning team.

Turgeon, if not signed, would have been an RFA. They absolutely, positively, 100% would NOT have lost him for nothing. So the rest of your line of reasoning is irrelevant.

Man, you really had me going. Who knew that instead of you yet again being all histrionic when someone disagrees with you (as has been the case for years), this has all been a clever ruse to prove to everyone that I'm a d*ck? You're thinking like 10 steps ahead here. You're basically the Napoleon of LGW. I'm in awe. I'm not going to address your sock account, @krsmith17. One of you is more than enough.

So you've chosen to argue with me all morning about a trade you don't care about to prove how SMART you are? Good thinking.

First, Turgeon doesn't need a "boost". He's already played well enough to earn a new contract from the vaunted GM Yzerman. McCarron's the one who has played his way off his NHL team. Speaking of, I just want you to reiterate that you're in favor of trading for a player who has already proven over the course of roughly 70 NHL games that he sucks because he "might" play better after a "change of scenery"? And you'd trade a player that the Wings' organization is obviously happy with in order to get this retread? And you don't think that's a dumb trade?

I didn't call you a name. I said it's a dumb trade and only dumb people would endorse it. You don't have to endorse it. You can back out now and just admit trading for a one-trick pony who isn't even good at his one trick is a bad idea for a trade. The only way the "dumb" comment applies to you is if you'd make the trade. So would you?

Yeah, Turgeon has played 9 NHL games. That's a pretty small sample size. However, McCarron has sucked in 69 NHL games. So take that for what it's worth. Also, as already noted Turgeon wasn't drafted to be a scorer. McCarron WAS drafted to be a scorer, so his .12 ppg over 69 games should be proof positive that he blows. AND McCarron is terrible at everything else. Turgeon isn't, which is why the Wings re-signed him. It's an idiotic trade that would accomplish nothing. We'd get nothing good out of it. It's the very definition of dumb. If a person finds themselves defending such a trade, they are also dumb. It's science.

McCarron has already proven he can't score in the NHL. He's not good at anything else. Turgeon isn't a scorer, but IS good at everything else. As such, he's more valuable. Edit: I don't think I know more than everyone else. Just you.

Aho is a demonstrably better player than Svech. McCarron isn't a demonstrably better player than Turgeon. Again, the premise of the trade is that since neither are any good, why not? I'll always make trades that improve the team. Trades that don't do anything are pointless, and dumb. Checking line centers are supposed to do things like play defense, win faceoffs, kill penalties, etc. McCarron isn't that guy, so why bother with him? Nope, you should make trades if a player is better, fills a need, has a better contract, etc. etc. etc. TONS of reasons to make trades. What you should definitely not do is make a trade just for the heck of it. Which is EXACTLY what this would be. The Wings like Turgeon, he checks all the boxes for a checking line center, McCarron fills none of them. He's also younger for what that's worth. And since neither of these guys is going to be anything MORE than a checking line center, why trade for the worse one? Again, it's an idiotic trade idea supported by lazy fans who get it in their head that they "like" a player and then jump through hoops trying to justify why acquiring that player is a good idea. It's not. McCarron sucks. We have plenty of guys who suck. Why swap them? For a different version of "suck"?