kipwinger

So you'd trade any player for a better player? How profound. Nobody is arguing against that meaningless platitude. This whole conversation spawned from a discussion about trading our top prospects for one of Trouba, Fowler, or Shattenkirk. None of whom are top defensemen. That's where your scenario falls apart, as has been pointed out. But you keep beating this drum for some reason. Despite all the gushing over these guys from the LGW faithful, all of Trouba, Fowler, and Shattenkirk have real holes in their games. Trouba, for instance, has been heralded as a "potential 1D" despite showing Danny Dekeyser like offensive skills during his pro career. None of these guys are top defensemen on their teams. The fact that they'd be a top defenseman on our team doesn't make them better players, it just means we're not that great. If your 1D is worse than all the other 1D around the league you're still at a relative loss. And that's BEFORE you factor in the fact that you lost a top prospect to make it happen. I'd have been happy to trade for ANY of them if we'd landed a decent offensive player in FA. Replacing Nyquist or Tatar with Okposo would have made one of them expendable. And a trade would have made sense. But doing it now, with a top prospect, is a recipe for disaster.

He'd ultimately lose his roster spot to "GRIT". You know damn well we can't win without "GRIT".

I hope that's the case. I honestly didn't think his defensive game was terrible for a rookie, but I agree he needs to work on some things to be a regular center. Namely his faceoffs (which is my big worry with Larkin moving to C this year too).

Anybody read the NHL.com "5 Questions" article with Ken Holland? I liked that they're planning to start Zetterberg with Nielsen, but a bit disappointed that he didn't mention AA when talking about prospective centers. I'm going to be really irritated if they develop that kid into a winger.

Which is exactly what we did. Traded Fleishmann and Matthias, but not Datsyuk and Homer. So what are you complaining about? You're advocating for the EXACT trade strategy employed by our current management. Also, I wouldn't go touting the Fleishmann trade as if it was some kind of ideal. We gained Lang, who underwhelmed in two seasons, and lost Fleishmann and a pick (that turned out to be Mike Green). We'd have been MUCH better off not making that trade. Which is EXACTLY my point. The grass isn't always greener when trading prospects for established talent.

Bouwmeester, since being traded, has scored 37, 13, and 19 points while being pretty good defensively. Pretty much everyone would consider him a second pairing defenseman. During that same span, Tatar has 39, 56, and 45 points. Nyquist has 48, 54, 43 points. I'd trade all the 20 point defensemen in the world for those "small, one dimensional, 45 point wingers". And you can go ahead and laugh your way to a lottery pick. At the end of the day, this game is about scoring goals, and they do. That's why they're more valuable than a second pair defenseman.

Trouba isn't even the best d-man of the three. That's Shattenkirk, and there's a reason why he's being traded despite producing better than Pietrangelo since being traded to St. Louis. Everybody is so bonkers for a defenseman they've dramatically overestimated these guys' values. St. Louis, Anaheim, and Winnipeg ALL have better defenses than us. None of them have won anything. And these are the three guys they're looking to get rid of (supposedly). There's a reason for that. None of them make us much better, if at all.

Nope. Because even if they only achieve 75% of their potential, if that turns out be be greater than the "established" player you got then you'd be behind. Neither Tatar nor Nyquist developed into reliable 70 point guys. But they're both reliable 40-50 point guys, which still make them better than a huge chunk of the league. If you'd traded either of them, and XO, for Bouwmeester (as you'd suggested) you would lose that trade. Not because Tatar or Nyquist reached their ceilings, but because they're more valuable to the team than Bouwmeester even at their current level of play.

So is your position that we should make a habit of trading good prospects because sometimes they don't pan out? If that's the case we should trade Larkin too, because he "could" turn into the next Cheechoo as well right?

I agree with you sentiment, but I don't want Zetterberg at center. The work load down the middle is too much for his old legs. Let him play on the wing, with a lessened defensive load, and he'll contribute plenty of offense.

Its not a question of trading "prospects" for a middle pairing defenseman, its a question of trading "top prospects" for a middle pairing defenseman. And if you'd do that you're crazy.

Exactly.

You're conveniently leaving out two things. All the times Dombrowski traded away prospects for established players and got the better end of the deal, as well as all the times he traded prospects for established players and got burned. Remember when he traded established all stars Granderson and Edwin Jackson and got two totally overrated prospects in Austin Jackson and Max Scherzer? Or how about trading Cespedes for that totally overvalued Fulmer guy? Oh wait, turns out those prospects were pretty good huh?

So you would have pulled the trigger on the Nyquist and Tatar for Bouwmeester deal?

And just because some prospects don't hit their ceilings doesn't mean you should trade other promising young prospects anticipating they won't hit theirs. And be careful what you wish for. It wasn't too long ago that we very nearly traded promising young prospects Nyquist and Tatar for "proven" top four defender Jay Bouwmeester. That would have been smart right? The problem with your scenario is exactly what you're accusing me of. You're dramatically undervaluing our prospects and romanticising the defender or power forward we would get in return. There is not a single defender or forward available who is worth losing that kind of prospect for. Not Trouba, not Shattenkirk, not Fowler. If they were as good as you're making them out to be they wouldnt be getting traded. More likely they're just another Jay Bouwmeester, and I'd rather not lose guys with AA's upside for that.

Though it's a much smaller sample size, I think AA was better than Larkin this year. His shooting percentage was unsustainable at 17%, so it will likely regress. But chances are he'll have a higher shooting percentage than Larkin because his one on one moves are better. Multi goal games should happen to him more regularly. Larkin scored 22 goals on 221 shots with a 10% shooting rate. Given the same number of games, quality of linemates, and ice time I'd expect AA to score more. His assist totals will also come up once he starts playing with guys who can finish as well. Again, it's hard to say what he'd do over a full season because his sample size is so small, but based on his skill set I'd expect him to be right in line (if not better) than Larkin over a full season even if his shooting regressed to a pretty reasonable 12%.

Yeah, you know me. Always over valuing prospects. I mean, I've said I'd be thrilled if Mantha turned out to be as good as Franzen, Jurco as good as Abdelkader, Smith as good as Johnny Oduya, and Larkin as good as Kyle Turris. I'm really over the moon with my expectations of prospects.

I wouldn't trade AA under any realistic circumstance. I don't even think he's scratched the surface of how good he's going to be. You don't find that combination of size, speed, and skill often. And that's not even his strongest trait. He's a very smart kid. You can tell by the way he talks about the game. About getting better. He doesn't speak in idiotic sports tropes. He's actually thinking. That's what, IMO, separates him from a guy like Smith (or maybe even Mantha). Listen to Brendan talk sometime. He's a bonehead. All the physical gifts in the world but he will never be as good as his talent will allow because he's a dumbass. AA is going to be very, very, good in this league. I'm calling that right now. At the very least he will be Kesler good. But I genuinely don't think its a stretch for him to be as good as Seguin is now, or Spezza was in his prime.

I agree with part of this, and disagree with part of it. Jurco did get rushed up to the big club, and he surely would have benefited from more time in GR. However, I don't think he needed top six time. His first (partial) season he played almost exclusively on the third line and produced pretty well. If he continued to produce at that same clip from the 3rd line we wouldn't even be discussing him right now. Everybody would be fine with his production. It's the fact that he can't seem to replicated even 3rd line production, with 3rd line minutes, that go him demoted and eventually scratched. Jurco needs to produce moderate point totals in moderate minutes before he should be given any more responsibility. So far he hasn't shown he can do that consistently.

Remember when Colorado had Landeskog, and Duschene, and O'Reilly, and Stastny, and Shattenkirk, and looked like a promising up and coming team? Lol. I meant Roy. As the struggles of our very own Anthony Mantha attest, dominating a bunch of teenagers in the Canadian Juniors weakest league is a far cry from being able to do so in the most elite hockey league on earth. If Roy had been a competitive AHL coach I wouldn't be saying this. But he was reasonably successful in a child's league and that was good enough for Avs management because "hey, he's Patrick Roy. The fans will love it.". Good thinking fellas.

So, is this what happens when you hire unqualified people based on their name and relationship to you and not because they're good at their job?

Ott was never a guy who would "stop" anything. Aside from the fact that fighting doesn't deter anything ever, even IF it did, I sincerely doubt the deterrent value of a 190 lb, loudmouth who lost most of his career fights.

Having a third line made up on bona fide top six players didn't hurt either.

Yeah, that "defense wins championships" thing may be true in football or baseball where there's a clear distinction between the offense and defense (though I'm not even sure it works there), but in more fluid games like hockey, basketball, or soccer its much less true. Not to say defense doesn't matter, but what constitutes "defense" as opposed to "offense" is a little murkier. Defensemen can really help generate a ton of offense by gaining possession of the puck and advancing it quickly and effectively. Likewise, the offense makes the whole process of defending much easier if they can hold the puck in the opposition's end and sustain o-zone pressure.

I am. I think our offense should rebound nicely, we should be better in goal, and our defense (although relatively weak) isn't as bad as people think.