kipwinger

And adjust Lidstrom and Orr's career numbers for era and they converge to almost the exact same level of output. 1.39 points per game for Orr and 1.33 for Lidstrom. That argument works both ways.

Right, but I think that's unreasonable. Just like comparing modern medicine, training, etc. You can't change what already was. It's a question of "would you rather have Lidstrom (given his career) vs. Orr (given his career)". To me that's a no brainer. It's worthless to speculate about "if X happened" or "if Y didn't happen". If Lindros didn't have concussions he might be one of the best ever, but he did, so he wasn't. Lidstrom had less impact than Orr on any individual game, but he made a huge impact on WAY MORE games. To me that makes him the better defenseman overall.

I don't think this argues against Lidstrom being a dominant offensive defenseman. The fact that other people did it too doesn't mean he didn't. That's like saying Yzerman wasn't dominant in 1988 because Lemieux and Gretzky scored more that season. They were all, obviously, dominant. Lidstrom was a dominant offensive defenseman during his era regardless of what others did as well.

Lol. Got a little carried away with my Lidstrom love apparently.

I'm not talking about hockey writers though. I'm talking about me, if I were a GM, and which player I'd rather have. And I think I'd rather have the "2nd" best defenseman of all time for 1,500 games than the "Best" defenseman for 650. Lidstrom was still HUGELY impactful on a night by night basis, and you'd reap the benefits of that impact for more than twice as many games over his career.

You may be right here. Admittedly, I didn't see him play. But I've never heard his defensively game discussed in the same way that Lidstrom's was. So I'm largely going off that.

That said, I don't think a guy that stayed healthy and played a lot of games at a really high level should be penalized for being healthy. Would you rather have a guy who scored 1 point per game and played all 82, or a guy that scored 1.5 points per game but could only impact 62 games a season? There's a tremendous amount of value in having great players on the ice as often as possible. Statistically Orr is better in every offensive category. There's no question. But that doesn't do you any good when he's not playing. Lidstrom was less good statistically, but he was always there factoring into the play night after night. That's huge. Edit: Which is why I break this discussion down to "who would I rather have" vs. "who was better statistically". There's no debate if you're only discussing the latter.

In 1970-71, Orr's best statistical season, Phil Esposito scored 152 points, and had an astounding 550 shots. That's unheard of in today's game. Defensive systems and goalie evolution being what they are now (or in the 1990s), I don't think it's a stretch to say that it was easier to score in 1970 than it was when Lidstrom played. 4 of the top 5 winningest goalies in NHL history all played in Lidstrom's era. That's not a fluke.

Orr dazzles because of all the points he put up. Lidstrom didn't play in an era of high scoring yet still DOMINATED offensively from the blue line during his time. Additionally Lidstrom played elite defense. He was better than Erik Karlsson offensively, and better than anyone defensely, something Orr didn't really do. Orr was the first "defenseman who played like an extra forward". All things considered, if I'm drafting for today's game I'm drafting Lidstrom. I'd probably draft him in 1975 too. He was just too good at everything to take a back seat to anyone. Edit: Same logic I'd use to pick Crosby over Ovechkin in today's game. Ovechkin is exponentially better than basically every other winger in NHL history. Adjusted for era he's probably even better than that. But Crosby is better in multiple facets of the game, which gives him the nod in my opinion. Being better in many areas is more useful than being WAY better in one area.

Nice dodge. I've NEVER said that about any of the people you mentioned. You're really good at completely avoiding what other people say and turning it into something you can debate. I said AA has elite skill. His skating is DEFINITELY elite, and has scoring rate has been elite so far as well. Again, if you're skeptical based on the sample size then I understand and share your concerns about him keeping it up (I've said this a number of times already). But you seem to be doubling down on A) AA isn't an elite player (which I've never said), and B) that other people have been wrong about other players (which is irrelevant). But again, I suspect that's not the point. Obviously being snarky on the internet, regardless of what other people are saying, is your end game here.

I'd be pissed if we took anything other than a center or a defenseman in the draft. We've got wingers in spades. Especially if the organization insists on continuing to use AA and Larkin as wingers.

True, and quite a few guys haven't been the same after a sports hernia. Like I said before, it's good that it's happening so early in his career. But I'd be VERY cautious with him.

I'd have to dig up the article, but I read recently that the "upper body injury" was an aggravation of the sports hernia issue. Doesn't look good. I wouldn't touch him unless he fell down the board and I could move back and get another pick.

Here are a few centers in this year's draft that I like. Big fan of Vilardi and Hischier. I'd avoid Patrick at all costs...unless he falls way down the draft board and we can trade back to get another asset. Sports hernias are devastating (ask Stephen Weiss), but it is happening early enough in his career that he may be able to rebound. BIG risk though.

I already agreed with selling at the deadline. But that's not what I mentioned above. I talked about maximizing our lineup with correct roster decisions and you said that "wouldn't be in our best interest". Which seems to suggest that you think we SHOULDN'T ice the best lineup possible. Which is equivalent to losing on purpose. And I don't agree with that strategy. I also don't think our team, as constructed, "will never win any PO games". I think our lineup is WAY better than our coaching. We're bigger, faster, and more talented than we've been in a few years. We're not a great team, but we're not as bad as we look. Our coaching, however, is awful. And it's becoming increasingly clear that we've got locker room issues as well.

It would be a slight gamble, depending on how routine the injury/surgery is. Given that he's playing through it I'm guessing that it's probably not career threatening or anything. And again, RFA's have huge value in trades because the organization holds all the cards when it comes to negotiations. His "pace" is sort of irrelevant in this scenario because A) he's injured, and B) our team is awful. He's pretty clearly shown he's a 20+ goal scorer over his career. 4.75 million is a steal for that production, especially because the term on RFA contracts is usually fairly short.

If Tatar is an RFA this summer then he'd have good value. He's obviously a very good player (injury aside) and if someone could get a guy of his offensive ability AND have him be cost controlled via RFA they'd jump at it. I would.

I don't believe in tanking. Losing on purpose is for losers. I'd rather we ice the best lineup, and go where that takes us. I'm not opposed to selling at the deadline in preparation for a big draft, but I've never advocated tanking and I don't think it's the way to go now. If we miss the playoffs Blash will likely be out anyway.

I'm actually happy that we've finally got a top six that seems to be able to score. The Tatar-Z-Mantha and AA-Neilsen-Vanek lines are scoring. Abby and Helm should help fill out the bottom six (if Blashill doesn't do something stupid). If we can get Green and Smith back and ice the BEST possible defense, we might be able to go on a late run. May not be enough to make the playoffs, but I'm optimistic we'll look better down the stretch with just a few returning players.

I don't disagree about Coreau last night, but I also don't think it was a bad idea to go with the same lineup coming off the Los Angeles game. It was the best game we've played in months.

I probably would have requested a trade last year too if I was him. He was stuck on the third line getting garbage minutes. He had less top six time than Richards or Helm. But if he still wants to go then Holland should dangle him. Don't necessarily trade him, I mean, the Trouba and Drouin trade requests didn't necessarily mean those guys wanted out permanently. Just wanted to see changes made. They got what they wanted and are playing great so I wouldn't say "do it" just to do it.

I didn't accuse you of being negative. I accused you of masking the essential baseness of your posts under an air of condescension and sarcasm. I'm sorry that AA hasn't played more games. I have no control over that. But it's all we have to judge his NHL career, and so far his scoring rate has been elite. As is, obviously, his speed. Both of which support my point. If you disagree that his scoring rate has been elite and is inflated because of sample size you could have said so to begin with, instead of "Elite. People keep using that word, I don't think it means what they think it does.". But I suspect being patronizing on the internet really just sorta does it for you.

Predictably you've decided to argue that AA isn't an elite player. Something I made clear, TWICE, that I wasn't saying. He's been in the top 1% of NHL players in even strength scoring for the last two seasons. That seems fairly elite thus far too. Again, I said he's got an elite skill set which you seem to agree with as far as skating. His scoring rate is elite too. Did you want to address what I've actually said, or just keep arguing against the strawman you created?

I obviously know what the word elite means. And I wasn't even saying AA was an "elite" player, like Seguin is. I was saying that he had an elite skill set. If he utilizes that skill set each and every shift, against top competition, he'll be an elite player. It was all pretty clear in my original post. Dickie just thinks being cynical and condescending masks the fact that he hasn't contributed anything productive or intelligent to this forum in years. It doesn't, after 2,000,000 snarky "Blashill/Abby/Helm sux!" posts we're all pretty hip to his shtick.

Well then enlighten us, by all means. What I said was, "he's got elite level skill". I stand behind that. He's above average in size, his skating is better than all but 1% of the league, he's in the top 5% of the league in even strength scoring per 60 minutes of play, and is in the same percentile in shot generation. Seems like elite level skill to me. But as I insinuated above his ability to do that every single shift, against top players, hasn't been proven. So he's not an elite player. Just has the skill. Edit: I stand corrected. He's in the top 1% of the league at 5on5 scoring per 60 minutes of play.