kipwinger

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.

I think he'll be on the big club. No doubt about it. But I think Blashill will (stupidly) use him as a wing.

You're right. I don't remember exactly what year it was, but within recent memory Minnesota's prospect pool was ranked really high. I'll try to find a link. Edit: Another thing, a lot of this has to do with the Canadian hockey media protecting Canada's hockey relevance. If your team has a bunch of Canadian kids they know, then you must be good, because they know them. Surely no foreign kid that they've never heard of could be as talented as your cousin's neighbor's son. He's a known quantity.

Fans and commentators are increasingly mesmerized by draft rank and physical characteristics. Time and time again those things have been misleading. If you've got a bunch of first rounders you've got a "good prospect pool" and if you don't, or they were drafted later in the round, then you don't. But it's wholly misleading. Most of the "can't miss" first rounders go straight to the NHL and aren't considered "prospects" anyway. Anybody who remains in lower leagues are only marginally different than one another. You can't tell me that a guy ranked 8th in the draft is fundamentally better than a guy ranked 28th. Maybe they're at different points on their developmental trajectory, but their ceilings aren't much different. With respect to the 1st round of the draft, you're talking about the 30 best players in the world. What separates them is fairly minimal in all but the most extreme cases (McDavid, Matthews, etc.).

I'd be thrilled if Mantha turned out exactly like Franzen. Though I hope he'd learn to keep his head out of the way of traffic a little better than Johan.

Agreed. But I think our offense under performed last year anyway. Any improvement on the powerplay, rebound seasons from Nyquist and Tatar and Green and Kronwall, increased contributions from the guys you mentioned, and the additions of Vanek and Neilsen give me some optimism with regards to our offensive potential. I'm expecting a better offense this year. I agree that a better defense would likely improve the offense. No doubt about it. But I don't think either of Fowler or Trouba will contribute much. Shattenkirk likely would, but it would probably be a wash (at best) with what we'd lose in Nyquist (and potentially others). And there's always the likelihood that a guy like Shattenkirk scores a good deal less with us than he did with a much better offensive team in St. Louis. I'm not against a trade for a defenseman. I'm just against one right now. Why not go into the season with what we have, see how things look, and then look to deal (if needed) closer to the deadline if need be? I'm just a bit reluctant to part with one of our better offensive contributors for any of those three guys. While they're all good players, none of them are game changers, and it might just be that we need the goals scoring more.

I may be in the minority, but I don't see Mantha as (or want him to be) a "net front" guy. I think that would ruin him. He's got the skill, shot, and speed to be a power sniper type guy in the vein of Rick Nash, James Neal, or Blake Wheeler. Let guys like Abby bang and crash in front of the net. That takes almost no skill. I want Mantha to have more freedom than that. Similarly, I think that's one of the problems with Jurco. He's big, so everybody wants him to play a power game. But that's not his forte. He's more comparable to Nyquist or Tatar than he is to Abby. But they keep trying to make him be that guy and it's awkward for him because he's never played that way. Reminds me a little of how they used to want Filppula to "shoot more" so they put him on the wing. It was always going to be a bad fit for him. Imagine if someone had repeatedly beat into Marian Hossa, or Nash, or any number of other guys, that they needed to play "heavy" and crash the net, and look for shot tips and rebounds. They'd have been wasted.

Disregarding the incredibly unlikely scenario where we get two good defensemen, I'd still argue that even getting one is a bad idea right now. Adding any one of Shattenkirk, Trouba, or Fowler doesn't make our defense good. Better? Yes. But still middle of the road. But any trade to do so would require one of our better offensive pieces. That would likely make an offense which could well be "good" a lot more mediocre. And personally I'd rather have a good offense and a mediocre defense than be mediocre at both. We've got to figure out a way to be good at something lest we fall into the trap of being good at nothing. All in the name of "balance" which is a fairly overrated concept to begin with.

I've posted elsewhere that the usage for the pairings I've proposed would make all the difference in the world. I'd start the Smith-Marchenko pair in the defensive zone most often, for a few reasons. 1) They're the least capable offensive pair so there's no reason to waste offensive zone time on them. 2) Both have the ability to gain possession of the puck because both are big, strong, and aggressive. 3) Smith especially has shown he's good at advancing the puck after gaining possession and Marchenko also makes good outlet passes. They should be able to get possession and get the puck up ice. As an aside, I'd start Green and Dekeyser in the neutral zone and Kronwall-Sproul in the offensive zone. Green-Dekeyser are offensively competent AND can get back on defense while Kronwall-Sproul would be bad defensively but dangerous if started in the O-zone.

Agreed. Besides, it's not really that uncommon for a young guy to tail off at the end of the season. From January to March Larkin had 8 goals and 4 assists. For comparison's sake, Jack Eichel had 8 goals and 14 assists. Yet nobody would think it ludicrous to suggest Eichel be a top center. But again, whichever line you designate as 1st or 2nd doesn't really matter. Their usage will determine which line is the "top line" and in most cases the 1st and 2nd lines are interchangeable as far as ice time.

Yep. Who else do we have? I expect he'll be better in his second year than his first. But if it makes you feel better you could switch the top two lines considering it doesn't make a difference which order I list them in but only how much ice time they get. It's worth noting that Datsyuk was on our "2nd line" last year and still had top line minutes. You're getting WAY too caught up with designations. Z-Neilsen-Vanek Tatar-Larkin-Abby Nyquist-AA-Mantha/Sheahan Helm-Glendening-Mantha/Sheahan Better?

I'm really not so sure we need a "top defenseman". Would it be nice, sure. But I don't think that's a make or break factor heading into this season. I've said already that we've got to sort out the usage with the guys we've got, but if Blashill pulls his head out of his ass and gears his usage toward possession and offense then we could be dangerous. The other big question mark is whether or not Holland is willing to cut bait with veterans who can't hack it. In some ways I seriously doubt that part. I realize I keep posting lines. But humor me. There's a lot of offensive potential in something like this provided Blashill doesn't get too caught up in this "shot suppression" type game. This lineup would be adequate defensively, but they could score A LOT if things go right. Tatar-Larkin-Abby Z-Neilsen-Vanek Nyquist-AA-Mantha/Sheahan Helm-Glendening-Mantha/Sheahan Dekeyser-Green Smith-Marchenko Kronwall-Sproul Ericsson

Guys have a tendency to produce more offense under Laviolette than they would otherwise. His system is pretty wide open offensively. I wouldn't expect the same players to perform at the same level under a more defense oriented system.

Personally, I don't think that Holland should trade anything for a defenseman right now. MAYBE at the deadline. We have a ton of question marks surrounding our offense. We just lost our best offensive player, Zetterberg is diminishing, Tatar and Nyquist are good but not (so far) capable of carrying the offensive load, who knows how the young guys will look in their second season, Neilsen has never been an offensive force, and Vanek has serious question marks. I'd be really loathe to part with one of our better offensive players (Nyquist or Tatar) before we even see what we have. You trade one of them before the season starts and your offense sputters out the gate then you haven't done yourself any favors. I was all in favor of trading Nyquist PROVIDED we landed someone in FA who was pretty much guaranteed to replace or eclipse his offense (e.g. Okposo) but in lieu of that I'm not ready to send that offense out the door for a defenseman. I say wait and see. If our offense rebounds this season then maybe we have an extra asset to move. But that begs the question, if you have a really good offense then what reason do you have to trade anything for an "offensive defenseman"? I think, for the time being we should be looking at usage and how to get more out of what we have. I like this. Dekeyser-Green Smith-Markenko Kronwall-Sproul Ericsson Just make sure that you're using them appropriately. As in, start the pairs listed above in the neutral, defensive, and offensive zones respectively.